Let's Talk About Tidal For a While to Distract Ourselves

[FrancisH]

Lossless audio is a load of bollocks - a musical placebo, so the same haggard acts can sell their album for the 100th time in a different format.

I don't know about that, I did a load of blind tests this morning in work (slow day) and picked out the lossless every time, could be just coincidence mind! Is it worth £20? maybe if you have a lot of high end equipment and the cash to spare why not... if you're rocking some £5 gummy headphones then don't bother.

I'll be cancelling my trial anyway, definitely more gimmick than substance ultimately.

(plus vinyl is way better than all streaming)

Edited March 31, 2015 by FrancisH

[jonodillieono]

Radiohead are also in on it what with The National Anthem being the theme song for all those numpties signing a piece of paper

[Matt - Ed Banger Records]

Lossless is only good in a few situations though in reality. If you were streaming it through some high end speakers or through some exceptionally expensive headphones. If you're just travelling on the bus or during everyday playback you're never going to notice, at least not appreciably.

I would also go as far to say that a anyone who has spent any decent amount of time submitting their ears to loud music (festival goers and clubbers) are even less likely to be able to pick out the differences.

But, as I said earlier, people will still pay the money for a service they deem to premium, simply because it's wrapped up in a lovely premium box with a premium price.

[Mardy]

the idea of loseless on a juddering, creaking commuter journey is madness.

[Titters2]

The idea that more, smaller artists get a greater share of the income generated from the streaming of their music is great.

BUT the execution is poor.

They could have been more explicit in making the smaller acts receive a greater %ge of the generated income. This would have made it more appealing, I think.

Secondly - they could have stolen a march on the other services. By charging, say £7.99 for the subscription (rather than matching Spotify etc), they could have gained market share much faster. The greater share going to the artists would have meant that the smaller acts would still be better placed, than the 0.003p they receive from Spotify.

FWIU, Tidal should benefit smaller acts over Spotify. BUT it's also designed to make the big acts even richer, even faster. And that might not be the best thing for the industry.

[Mardy]

The idea that more, smaller artists get a greater share of the income generated from the streaming of their music is great.

BUT the execution is poor.

They could have been more explicit in making the smaller acts receive a greater %ge of the generated income. This would have made it more appealing, I think.

Secondly - they could have stolen a march on the other services. By charging, say £7.99 for the subscription (rather than matching Spotify etc), they could have gained market share much faster. The greater share going to the artists would have meant that the smaller acts would still be better placed, than the 0.003p they receive from Spotify.

FWIU, Tidal should benefit smaller acts over Spotify. BUT it's also designed to make the big acts even richer, even faster. And that might not be the best thing for the industry.

They wanted to charge 7.99, I believe, but the record labels wouldn't let them

[Titters2]

They wanted to charge 7.99, I believe, but the record labels wouldn't let them

Power to the people.......

[ghostdancer1]

I'm with you, don't understand all the hate. Surely artists getting the money is better than some fatcat. Also if it is higher quality then it's technically a better service for the consumer. The whole higher quality (digital) music is really starting to pick up steam.

"some fatcat" has just been replaced by Jay-Z, Calvin Harris, Kanye, Madonna, Daft Punk etc.

small musicians will still make absolutely fuck all off this.

the shareholders will still be taking a huge amount of the proceeds. Nicki Minaj is hardly signing up for some noble crusade after all....

[WS_Jack_III]

"some fatcat" has just been replaced by Jay-Z, Calvin Harris, Kanye, Madonna, Daft Punk etc.

small musicians will still make absolutely fuck all off this.

the shareholders will still be taking a huge amount of the proceeds. Nicki Minaj is hardly signing up for some noble crusade after all....

but if a small musician gets their music on tidal won't they benefit more?

[dentalplan]

Radiohead are also in on it what with The National Anthem being the theme song for all those numpties signing a piece of paper

Dunno about that. Radiohead have been very vocal about streaming services that shit on the little guy. Can't see little guys not being shit on here.

[Matt - Ed Banger Records]

Guessing it depends entirely on the terms they offer to new bands and what the uptake is like on the service, a bigger slice of a smaller pie won't really help small and new acts.

Also worth considering the sorts of customers this will get, could potentially lead to an increase in illegally downloading if people don't fancy spending £240 a year for a premium service

[Babyquack]

"some fatcat" has just been replaced by Jay-Z, Calvin Harris, Kanye, Madonna, Daft Punk etc.

small musicians will still make absolutely fuck all off this.

the shareholders will still be taking a huge amount of the proceeds. Nicki Minaj is hardly signing up for some noble crusade after all....

Isn't this better than a 'fatcat' that didn't make music and is literally just an entrepreneur that is making money off other people's music? At least these are musicians who now own Tidal and will hopefully have the desires of smaller musicians in mind when deciding how much to pay them instead of thinking how much money can we scam off these artists?

Dunno about that. Radiohead have been very vocal about streaming services that shit on the little guy. Can't see little guys not being shit on here.

Same as above tbh, do you not feel that this is at least the best way that little guys won't be shit on as much? Because they do everywhere else so far...

[ravermum]

Lots of interesting replies and points on this one. It's good to be a forum poster with people who care deeply about music, though we sometimes split hairs on the small stuff.

Everyone who truly loves music has a duty to buy what they can afford and not rip off what they can't, but here's the thing with Tidal. It's owned by Jay-Z (he bought it last year under it's earlier guise) and when you drill down into the rhetoric, it seems like the artist-owned and led mantra they're pushing refers to those who've chucked their hat into the financial ring with him, IE - the 'artists' on the stage yesterday - rather than struggling, gigging musicians or those lower down the pay scale.

If you have a chance to look at the video on The Independent article I posted at the start of this thread (about 2:40 in, I think but I can't face watching it again to check) , the event presenter introduces each 'artist' one by one and they all come on stage to separate cringe-inducing applause and whoops. I just mention this to underline what a self-important arsehole fest it was.

The fact is the first tier price of Tidal pays artists exactly the same as Spotify. The second tier price pays double that but wonder how many will sign up for that? It seems like when Alicia Keys quoted Nietzsche and Hendrix in her keynote speech and talked about artist-led service, she means a shareholder-led service, just like every other big business.

This streaming stuff lark is in it's dribbling infancy, but don't let Jay-Z, who was recently plastered all over my local Superdrug walls hawking his cheap cologne, tell ya he's there to sock it to the man. He is the man, always has been, - he's the worst kind because he pretends to be something he's not.

On a brighter note, balance payment day tomorrow and obsessive line-up announcement checking.

Eat, sleep, check, repeat.

Edited March 31, 2015 by ravermum

[hurdy]

Absolutely. I'm under no misconception that the Tidal artists are not in it for themselves. However, they're taking the money for their own product.

You can argue separately as to whether they should be supporting new artists, but I fail to see how they're being labelled as money grabbing when they're taking home more of the money their product created.

[Size9]

Spotify get a bad rap for ripping off artists but they do deals regarding what they pay with the record companies who supposedly have their clients' best interests at heart.....surely they are equally, if not more, culpable for legging their charges over no? Or am I missing the point here?

[ghostdancer1]

Isn't this better than a 'fatcat' that didn't make music and is literally just an entrepreneur that is making money off other people's music? At least these are musicians who now own Tidal and will hopefully have the desires of smaller musicians in mind when deciding how much to pay them instead of thinking how much money can we scam off these artists?

not really.

the "fatcat" that people are referring to are tech people who designed, built, developed and grew an IT service.

there's no scamming going on. they did deals with musicians, rightsholders and labels. if musicians are upset about how much they're being paid, well it was their choice to sign up and continue leaving their music on there, making the people behind Spotify rich, while still cashing the cheques that Spotify send them.

now they'll just be making Jay-Z and co. richer. a small artist is unlikely to get any meaningful pay-out from Tidal either.

Edited March 31, 2015 by ghostdancer1

[Size9]

not really.

the "fatcat" that people are referring to are tech people who designed, built, developed and grew an IT service.

there's no scamming going on. they did deals with musicians, rightsholders and labels. if musicians are upset about how much they're being paid, well it was their choice to sign up and continue leaving their music on there, making the people behind Spotify rich, while still cashing the cheques that Spotify send them.

now they'll just be making Jay-Z and co. richer. a small artist is unlikely to get any meaningful pay-out from Tidal either.

Kind of the point I was making...only better put!

[Matt42]

If anyone's interested Lily allen is absolutely slamming it on twitter right now

[ghostdancer1]

Kind of the point I was making...only better put!

i tried to upvote yours but i've none left for today

[ICGenie]

yeah somehow I dont think any of these artists are going to be interested in promoting anything but their own egos....certainly doubt theyll have much to do with anything but major label commercial stuff they can make a lot of money from, which is where they will go wrong as one of the joys of spotify is finding new music thats not necessarily in the mainstream or even been noticed by many people yet.

also the price is a joke? 20 quid a month...sod that!

Anyone who thinks that £20 a month for unlimited music is expensive is a douche that doesn't deserve to get to listen to music at all.

[Tuna]

Check your privilege, man.

[eFestivals]

If anyone's interested Lily allen is absolutely slamming it on twitter right now

Lily's pissed off that she wasn't invited to the party...?

[evilduck]

Anyone who thinks that £20 a month for unlimited music is expensive is a douche that doesn't deserve to get to listen to music at all.

Depends how many artists Tidal actually get to sign up. If I'm paying £20 a month just to listen to Madonna and Daft Punk over and over again, that's a terrible deal.

[Vanderlyle]

Isn't this better than a 'fatcat' that didn't make music and is literally just an entrepreneur that is making money off other people's music? At least these are musicians who now own Tidal and will hopefully have the desires of smaller musicians in mind when deciding how much to pay them instead of thinking how much money can we scam off these artists?

Same as above tbh, do you not feel that this is at least the best way that little guys won't be shit on as much? Because they do everywhere else so far...

Think you might be buying in to some of the marketing here...

There's nothing at all to suggest the 'little artist' will get ANYTHING more. Tidal was just another Scandinavian music streaming service which got bought outright by Jay Z. So instead of being a start up tech company owned by tech guys, it is a start up tech company owned by a billionaire.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Vanderlyle

[geoffboycott]

I was very open mouthed when watching the presentation, just smacked of very wealthy musicians feathering their own nest, didn't hear a lot about the independent labels and less well known artists/writers - who tbh are the ones I'd much rather support and actively do by buying their music, so wasn't sure what was in it for them. What came across was a sense of detachment from reality, belief in their own hype and egos - I'm surprised they could all fit in the room.

I might have had a bit more respect if they had been more contrite and matter of what about what Tidal entails. Re: Daft Punk and Deadmau5, I mean, sure that's your stage persona, but ffs, at a launch of something supposedly serious, take the helmets off... and what was with Madge's leg up on the table when 'signing'... unbelievable. They expect people to take them seriously?!