Just curious what you think. Will share my opinion later.
Mr.Mystery
Unless they are looking for producers, I have no idea what this is doing here.
Richard Butler
This immediately struck me as a fundamental shift, music makers claiming the system at long last. Lets hope the apparent purity of the concept does not get hi-jacked by a few and turned into just another way of milking others dry.
I don't have any in depth knowledge on the concept, just what I saw briefly on the news;
Jay Z's strategy will include encouraging artists to lobby their labels to give Tidal new music a week in advance of other services, giving it a short window of exclusivity.
He told Billboard: "We didn't like the direction music was going and thought maybe we could get in and strike an honest blow.
"Will artists make more money? Even if it means less profit for our bottom line, absolutely. That's easy for us. We can do that. Less profit for our bottom line, more money for the artist; fantastic."
deegee
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Butler
This immediately struck me as a fundamental shift, music makers claiming the system at long last. Lets hope the apparent purity of the concept does not get hi-jacked by a few and turned into just another way of milking others dry.
I'm not particularly sanguine that the ideals will last in the business environment, or that this service will last very long. Sure, big names are involved--and Maverick, for example (Madge's label) writes exactly the same screw-the-artist contracts as every label out there.
Like it or not, people now simply expect to pay very little for the majority of the music they listen to. iTunes made a splash because of its relatively small payments (by the consumer) and the ease of integration with the iPod/Apple ecosystem.
Richard Butler
quote:
Originally posted by deegee
Like it or not, people now simply expect to pay very little for the majority of the music they listen to. iTunes made a splash because of its relatively small payments (by the consumer) and the ease of integration with the iPod/Apple ecosystem.
You see I read this ^ all the time, and yet I then get conflicting evidence, for example the producers of that dance track being sued for what was it, $12m, by Marvin Gayes family? So one track on the dance scene apparently making millions, and it wasn't that big a track was it?
Andy28
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Butler
and it wasn't that big a track was it?
Nah not really, just the most downloaded song of all time in the uk ever :haha:
deegee
Civil suits are not just about measurable damages, they're also about punitive damages aimed at dissuading such behaviour in the future.
Viber
*~*~"Artists"~*~*
evo8
how does this differ from Spotify? (apart from artists obv. migrating over) cant be arsed watching the vid
DJ RANN
I'm extremely sceptical about Tidal and don't see how the business model is any different that Spotify apart from lossless audio (which I like). The joke is, the vast majority of people on tidal are listening through Beats headphones so really this is just about marketing, and not quality of audio reproduction.
I'd like to know the nuts of bolts of their pay/contract model and again, I said it in the other thread, but it amazes me that youtube and spotify are allowed to trade, doing what is basically full on piracy. It's just putting music out there with faux legitimacy - It's why the founders of youtube were so happy to flog it as soon as they got an offer from google, and why they took stock as payment - nice big metal umbrella to shield them from what would have been massive litigation for breach of copyright. Of course, no problem for youtube's army of lawyers and connections to package the site as legitimate.
UNless, Tidal really is paying artists significantly more money than Spoty or the other streaming services, it won't change a thing.
deegee
quote:
Originally posted by Robotrance
They do support lossless though
Something that's basically irrelevant. I know a couple of people who tried the A/B testing on studio monitor setups, couldn't tell the difference. And if there's little to no difference detectable on multi-$K rigs, ain't no way someone using crappy headphones is going to be able to detect any difference whatsoever. The lossless thing is pure marketing, and nothing more.
Storyteller
My opinion on Tidal...
1. A bunch of recognized artists basically plugging their own "artist owned" streaming platform. Saying it is better for artists is a bunch of nonsense, their business-model is exactly the same as any other streaming platform. Record labels deals still have to be made as those labels hold key rights to the audio.
2. Lossless streaming is already done by other platforms too. Their non-losless packages are the same price as competing platforms. Nothing new.
3. Not all artists earn more, just those in the video as we can be reasonably assume they own a share in the company. Otherwise it wouldn't really be artist owned. This implies that if another artist's music would be available there, Madonna, Deadmau5, Jay-Z and others would get a cut which could have been yours.
4. Jay-Z (major stakeholder in Tidal) should have contacted Dr.Dre. At least Dre knows how to sell a product. But hey, bad publicity is also publicity. The PR moment was horribly painful to watch. A complete miss before it even started.
5. The platform is really small. Maybe artist endorsement will work and make it grow substantially. I hope not to be honest. It feels like the artists in the video all are in it for the wrong reasons. Tidal feels like a scam. Artist should be artists, not mooching money off other artists, especially not if you're already in the multi-million dollar game and really just don't need it. At least Spotify is in the game of making money and isn't trying to make it look like it isn't.
My boss summed it up in a single sentence: "It's like Michael Jackson's 'Heal the world', but they want to keep the money for themselves".
