Support NeoGAF

[LyleLanley]

More proof that Jay-Z doesn't know what normal people pay for things.

I still have no idea how this benefits the small guys. I want to know how much more a small artist will make by putting their music on Tidal.

 

[RDreamer]

As a user that pays for Spotify, I'm mostly concerned that artists are going to yank their music and put it on Tidal, splitting the available catalogs of music. That's not good for any fan of music. Splitting the content onto three or four services, so full access requires me to subscribe multiple times just damages the entire streaming model.

Reading between the lines I feel like Tidal is mostly a bargaining chip/blackmail for getting Spotify to drop the free tier.

 

[Parallax]

I think they mad because you can't have one or 2 good singles and trick people into buying a album that is hot garbage except those 1 or 2 good singles. I still want my money back from Ace of Base, Color Me Bad, and Another Bad Creation

i get i wanna sex you up, but ABC? they were always trash

 

[royalan]

Reading between the lines I feel like Tidal is mostly a bargaining chip/blackmail for getting Spotify to drop the free tier.

Tidal would need a shred of hope of becoming successful for that to happen. That ain't happening.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Yeah it's kinda ridiculous they haven't even shown some data. Just "oh we definitely pay more!" okay but is it significant?

They just seem to dance around it.

They talk about 'enriching music' and improving quality of life (?!) for young people, but they don't offer a free option. If this nebulous 'young people' can't/won't afford to pay for it, they'll keep taking music from other sources. It'd just be nice if they dropped the lofty pretentious language. They're not shaking anything up, IMO. And this 'damage control' interview hasn't even cleared up any misconceptions! It's all just marketing speak.

 

[Waikis]

You got to carry the one dummy.

Also, I hope Tidal bombs.

Honest question, why would you want Tidal to bomb?
Is it harming the industry?

Do we have any other alternatives for Lossless streaming?

 

[Byakuya769]

All these coded attacks on Jay's business acumen. Very interesting.

They're right about the devaluation of music, but they're wrong to focus their ire on what's basically the radio of the day. Pirating and YouTube rips are worse options.

 

[Trojita]

If you have five people paying for music, and ten people consuming it, then the artist starts at -5

 

[DECK'ARD]

As a user that pays for Spotify, I'm mostly concerned that artists are going to yank their music and put it on Tidal, splitting the available catalogs of music. That's not good for any fan of music. Splitting the content onto three or four services, so full access requires me to subscribe multiple times just damages the entire streaming model.

Yep, that will be the next trick and you can bet every one of the 16 artists agreed to that when they got their 3% with the blessing of their record labels. There will be content exclusive to Tidal.

This is all just the recording industry trying to kill free streaming not because it's bringing about the "downfall of the recording industry", it's actually growing it, but because they've seen how much money *could* be made if they can force subscriptions on everyone.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Get that bread Hov.

 

[Sobriquet]

If they actually have reasonable payouts for artists, then I'm all for it.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

i get i wanna sex you up, but ABC? they were always trash

Um...
Lies

 

[Parallax]

Um...
Lies

garbage.

 

[RDreamer]

Tidal would need a shred of hope of becoming successful for that to happen. That ain't happening.

Not really. If all of those mega celebs that signed on pulled their music and put it on Tidal, you can bet your ass spotify would sweat a little.

 

[Haint]

Somebody got to tell Jay Costco sells 36 count waters for $3.99, he's going to shit his pants.

 

[Syntsui]

People will eat some big crows underestimating Jay Z business capacity. This right now has infinitely more attention and media buzz than Google All Access, for example, ever had.

I'm curious to see how this thing will develop, by the way, competition is always good so, please, bring them streaming services.

 

[Trojita]

If they actually have reasonable payouts for artists, then I'm all for it.

I don't trust Jay Z's math explanations. He probably told them they'd make -5 and they accepted.

 

[Spinluck]

Tidalluminati

Nice try J. Fuck your service.

 

[royalan]

Not really. If all of those mega celebs that signed on pulled their music and put it on Tidal, you can bet your ass spotify would sweat a little.

Good luck to these artists convincing their labels to turn their backs on Spotify's 60 million userbase (and 15 million paying subscribers).

These artists pulling their music is an idle threat. If they were going to do that, it would have happened by now.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I mean Jay did say the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Kozak]

Not really. If all of those mega celebs that signed on pulled their music and put it on Tidal, you can bet your ass spotify would sweat a little.

You think the label who makes a shitload of money from Spotify is going to allow Artists to pull their music off Spotify?

The only reason Taylor Swift was able to pull her music off Spotify is because she and her family have strong (financial) ties with their label.

 

[Niks]

Yep, that will be the next trick and you can bet every one of the 16 artists agreed to that when they got their 3% with the blessing of their record labels. There will be content exclusive to Tidal.

This is all just the recording industry trying to kill free streaming not because it's bringing about the "downfall of the recording industry", it's actually growing it, but because they've seen how much money *could* be made if they can force subscriptions on everyone.

I dont understand this "exclusive" thing? The moment they pull that, the song will be on youtube and torrent in seconds. They are not fixing anything with that.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

This whole unveiling from the bizarre Twitter campaign, the commercial I saw and and this article makes the whole service come off so tone deaf. This is like the Xbox live unveiling to the pc gaming market. They have no gauge of the market and what will work. They're just going to try and force what they want without a compelling reason as to why.

 

[jtb]

Kanye (or any other artist for that matter) releasing his new album exclusively on Tidal would sooner kill his career than turn Tidal into a legitimate streaming contender.

 

[enigmatic_alex44]

I mean Jay did say the sun revolves around the earth.

Did he learn that "fact" from his wife?

 

[Just_myles]

garbage.

Dawg. For reals?

 

[entremet]

I don't mind artist banding together and getting concerned about music being devalued. I think the social media faux paus was miscalculation.

It is a America, people are free to start businesses and I can't blame artists for doing this.

That said, I think Spotify has clear first mover advantage here, so I don't think Tidal will succeed long term.

We'll see. Never underestimate Jay's business acumen, though. Dude, is a legit genius there.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Did he learn that "fact" from his wife?

He made that statement before Beyonce or even Destiny's Child were truly gaining buzz.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Good luck to these artists convincing their labels to turn their backs on Spotify's 60 million userbase (and 15 million paying subscribers).

These artists pulling their music is an idle threat. If they were going to do that, it would have happened by now.

They don't need to pull anything, they'll be exclusive content, new releases first on Tidal, these artist didn't get 3% of the company just for some Tweets.

It's all about bringing pressure to bear on Spotify, with their labels blessing.

 

[giga]

It's a pretty common fact that spotifys free tier isn't sustainable. The labels, which hold the power here, have said as much. Ads just don't bring in enough revenue. We already pay for Netflix. I don't see why we can't pay for on demand music with that same model without whining.

 

[royalan]

You think the label who makes a shitload of money from Spotify is going to allow Artists to pull their music off Spotify?

The only reason Taylor Swift was able to pull her music off Spotify is because she and her family have strong (financial) ties with their label.

And she's literally one of the few of these acts who doesn't need streaming to sell millions of copies of her album. This ain't the years before internet anymore. Only a few artists having that kind of selling power these days.

But Rihanna? Nicki Minaj? They don't sell albums like that. Streaming services are major part of their income.

It's a pretty common fact that spotifys free tier isn't sustainable. The labels, which hold the power here, have said as much. Ads just don't bring in enough revenue. We already pay for Netflix. I don't see why we can't pay for on demand music with that same model without whining.

Spotify pays out 70% of its profits to labels. The amount of money they pay is comparable to iTunes.

I have no doubt that Spotify will eventually adjust in some way to make more money as they get bigger and more entrenched. But their current model is closer to something the average consumer wants than anything the competitors are offering. Their model works more than it doesn't.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

A bottle of water costs $6?

It does in some parts of Los Angeles.

 

[Parallax]

Dawg. For reals?

ABC was real hot when i was a kid. i never saw the appeal of that shit. and i liked kris kross.

 

[CoolOff]

I guess the big labels are getting antsy about this disparity getting bigger.

But when you still see such growth in the paying category, does it really matter? 15 million paying * 7 dollars is over a 100 million monthly to the industry, and that's not including ad revenue. So far they've doubled year-to-year:

 

[enzo_gt]

That interview.. did not sell me on the service. Not doing it to compete bu to change the landscape, okay there. I still believe this is a bit antithetical to the general direction of music where people will receive music frequently for free and it will be monetized through merch -and touring.

I get that it's a big, buttered up way of trying to convince people that they should pay for their music but amidst all of their mental gymnastics to try and get that across I think they've already failed to drive that point home. The $9.99 price helps their case but only so much (especially when they then directly compare themselves to Spotify).

 

[Miggytronz]

Whoever is buying water for $6 is an idiot Jay.

 

[Remark]

What the fuck is Jay saying man. Ain't makin' no fuckin sense.

All I'm getting from this is that this more meant for the artists making more money than it is for the consumer tbh.Which imo I don't think matters that much anyways I mean your already stacking bread from iTunes and other digital services that allow you to buy albums. Don't understand the freak out over making a lot more money over streaming yet Now when streaming becomes the prominent way people are legally listening to an artists music, then I would say it would be a time to fight against getting that money over streaming you feel me.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I dont understand this "exclusive" thing? The moment they pull that, the song will be on youtube and torrent in seconds. They are not fixing anything with that.

It's how they are going to add value and convenience to Tidal over Spotify, if you are paying $10 for that you might as well pay it for this instead and get it all in one place first without the hassle. Convenience trumps everything.

All the while labels put the squeeze on Spotify to end free streaming as contracts come up for renewal.

It's going to get dirty.

 

[Touch]

"There is no free tier and we'll pay the highest royalty percentage. That's how we'll change the industry"

I know it's not the full quote putting it out of context, to an extent, but I LOL'd.

 

[J10]

You probably are no where near Manhatttan, NY

They must have seen you coming a mile away if they got $6 out of you for a bottle of water.

 

[Oersted]

Honest question, why would you want Tidal to bomb?
Is it harming the industry?

Do we have any other alternatives for Lossless streaming?

Deezer Elite rolled out last year and is now pretty much worldwide.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I don't understand their beef with the "free" tiers of other music services. Just because spotify/pandora's basic tiers are "free" on the consumer end doesn't mean that they don't generate revenue from ads. Otherwise I guess the radio industry has been bankrupt since day 1?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Here's the thing. The people "criticising" the amount of money the artists make are the artists. Nobody in real life give a fuck about whether they have a Gulfstream II or a Gulfstream III.

 

[XBP]

If they ever allow the ability to upload my own music I might consider switching to tidal. Until then, I'm staying put with all access.

As a service I honestly dont see anything wrong with their model. If they indeed pay artists more money than current competition then thats a good thing and more power to them.

 

[LyleLanley]

Here's the thing. The people "criticising" the amount of money the artists make are the artists. Nobody in real life give a fuck about whether they have a Gulfstream II or a Gulfstream III.

I'm not an artist and I don't care what kind of private jet they ultra rich musicians have but I do kind of care that the artists lower on the totem pole aren't being paid a sustainable amount.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I guess the big labels are getting antsy about this disparity getting bigger.

http://www.spotifyartists.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Screen-Shot-2015-03-02-at-11.03.07.png[IMG]

But when you still see such growth in the paying category, does it really matter? 15 million paying * 7 dollars is over a 100 million monthly to the industry, and that's not including ad revenue. So far they've doubled year-to-year:[/QUOTE]

Thing is by those graphs the disparity is actually shrinking. Paid subs in 2011 look to be roughly 1/7 of the userbase, whereas in 2014 they're 1/5.

 

[Oersted]

If they ever allow the ability to upload my own music I might consider switching to tidal. Until then, I'm staying put with all access.

As a service I honestly dont see anything wrong with their model. If they indeed pay artists more money then current competition then thats a good thing and more power to them.

They apparantly don't, as long as you don't belong to the 16.

 

[DarkFlow]

...Not sure if you're trying to say what it sounds like you're saying.

Artists and craftsman do deserve to be paid for the products they create, to be clear, and the heartiest of fucks to anyone who suggests otherwise.

They are getting paid. The artists they used to sell me the sob story they don't make enough had a collective net worth of over 2 billion.

 

[Mushroomer25]

I think there's room for something like Tidal, if they're smart about original content. High-fidelity audio isn't going to sell for most people, since they literally don't have the equipment necessary to notice the difference. The average customer would be paying for a placebo effect.

But if they can keep a consistent stream of high-quality exclusive content from the partnered artists - I think they'll do just fine. Album debuts, video content, documentaries, remastered stuff - that can appeal to the hardcore audience.

In a certain way, I think of Tidal as the digital answer to the vinyl resurgence. It's a premium product for the hardcore fanbase.

 

[Akainu]

Has he heard Ms.Hill lately?

is she doing bad?