LyleLanley
Banned
Does the hardcore fanbase even care about streaming services?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jay Z talks Tidal's pay-structure, lack of free tier, and how indie artists benefit
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
- Status
Does the hardcore fanbase even care about streaming services?
Pinko Marx
Banned
Jay Z trying hard to make the next Beats by Dre.
Mushroomer25
Member
That's why you create Tidal. To make them care. Why would they adopt a streaming service that doesn't cater to them?
Those people are at the top. What about everyone else?
LyleLanley
Banned
That's fair, but I'm not sure creating a niche streaming service aimed at hardcore fans will do much to disrupt the standards of the streaming music industry.
Mushroomer25
Member
I agree that Jay Z (and really everyone involved) has really overstated how "revolutionary" Tidal will be - but I still think it can be financially successful, since it's filling an unsatisfied niche.
UnObtainium17
Member
Who the fuck is swindling Jay for $6 per bottleof water? Someone help me get a hold of Jay im gonna sell him some $5 ozarkas.
Losless streaming is a very specific niche and gets already served. Funny enough, lossless playback is only supported on LG, Sony, Chrome, iOS. Samsung, HTC or Windows Phone? Out of luck.
Given that it would cost them more bandwidth to serve that content I dont really see a huge problem with that price. 14.99 would've been a better price but people who actually care about high quality audio would spend that extra 10$/month without thinking.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
so basically Jay-Z's last 3 albums
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Jay stays hopping on bandwagons and acting like he invented them. Oh, so unknown artists will be able to have their music heard through Tidal, maybe cosigned by entrenched artists? Hello, Jay-Z, I know you never been on MySpace, but I would have thought you were familiar with THE ENTIRETY OF THE INTERNET.
And then this lunacy from Vania shows how utterly and completely out of touch the wealthy are. "The data says that students don't really care about paying for streaming. I actually don't believe that, necessarily I think that this demographic here, sitting in the room, cares very deeply about music."
"We're ignoring data, because we think broke people are going to pay for our service because, they like, love music. We're going to pretend the rest of the world just discovered the internet yesterday too. Bandcamp? Soundcloud? YouTube? Spotify? What are those again? It's all very ethereal."
And then this lunacy from Vania shows how utterly and completely out of touch the wealthy are. "The data says that students don't really care about paying for streaming. I actually don't believe that, necessarily I think that this demographic here, sitting in the room, cares very deeply about music."
"We're ignoring data, because we think broke people are going to pay for our service because, they like, love music. We're going to pretend the rest of the world just discovered the internet yesterday too. Bandcamp? Soundcloud? YouTube? Spotify? What are those again? It's all very ethereal."
The problem with the current streaming royalty model is that it benefits the wildly successful through sheer volume, but doesn't really give the small fish much beyond crumbs.
So, instead of trying to squeeze more blood from the stones of stingy consumers, what about a service where successful artists subsidize struggling ones? Take a chunk of royalty change from established, popular acts and throw that money to the next generation.
So, instead of trying to squeeze more blood from the stones of stingy consumers, what about a service where successful artists subsidize struggling ones? Take a chunk of royalty change from established, popular acts and throw that money to the next generation.
Around 3-4 times the bandwidth of what spotify would use on its highest audio quality settings.The hifi tier is meant for people who want higher audio quality. If anyone wants a lower streaming setting, they can choose their second tier which works exactly like spotify,google all access etc. and provides similar audio quality.
Hans.Gruber
Banned
Same "enrichment" he did for the Brooklyn Nets?
So basically, Jigga will be out of the picture like 2 weeks after launch?
So basically, Jigga will be out of the picture like 2 weeks after launch?
nhlducks35
Member
http://tidal.com/us/video/lossless-explained
This is the most bullshit thing I've seen in my life
The comparison between 320 kbps and loseless in this video is incredibly misleading
This is the most bullshit thing I've seen in my life
The comparison between 320 kbps and loseless in this video is incredibly misleading
One of its tiers costs more than spotify. The second one is exactly like spotify premium, google all access, beats music etc.
Mushroomer25
Member
Which is why I think if they put a decent effort into exclusive content, they'll convince more hardcore music enthusiasts to invest the $20 monthly fee.
Its obvious that tidal and Beats will snag up exclusives, which, well, worries me. Fragmented music libraries will be a thing.
Yeah I just rolled me eyes during the whole interview and especially this part..
LyleLanley
Banned
Except he actually owns at least a large portion of Tidal. I'm pretty sure he only had a tiny slice of the Nets.
Mushroomer25
Member
I highly doubt they'll have exclusive artists. I could see timed exclusivity for album releases - but zero chance that entire artists will only arrive on a single service (Taylor Swift excluded).
But exclusive video content, maybe acoustic sets, alternate mixes - the stuff that enthusiasts would pay money to access.. I totally see that as a part of Tidal's future.
Never said exclusive artists. I said exclusives as in songs, videos and albums. Which yes, is bad. Want Eminem? On Tidal pretty much out of luck. Want the new Beyonce video and got a Google subscribtion? Well, you should have subscribed to tidal. Add in copyrights and service availability varying from country to country and you got a clusterfuck.
This is causing more harm than good.
Mushroomer25
Member
I don't see exclusive songs being anything more than B-sides or demos - akin to what already exists in retailer exclusives for CDs.
The value of music videos has already plummeted. They're not a revenue stream, and thus it's a very low-effort industry nowadays. If Tidal started pumping money back into the industry.. Can't say I wouldn't mind.
Netflix seems to have handled exclusive streaming content without it becoming a huge headache. Don't see it being that big of a problem.
As a [p word] in the past, I've changed my ways and have been a huge Spotify supporter since I've been able subscribe. I don't know a ton about the business structure of Spotify, but I'd like to see how Jay-Z's venture will be able to pay artists more and give discounts to certain people while offering the same service and comparable software as Spotify.
Edit: Since I've dropped the P word, I'll say that I've been paying for a premium membership to Spotify since the very day it was available in the United States.
Edit: Since I've dropped the P word, I'll say that I've been paying for a premium membership to Spotify since the very day it was available in the United States.
Retailer exclusive is already a headache, just go into the Ness Amiibo thread on gaming side. And this isn't just a bought CD or figure, its subscribing to multiple music streams. Costs that gonna add up.
Netflix has the advantage to dominate the market, but even there it gets tricky. Want House of Cards overseas? Its likely that another snatched up the rights before Netflix released there, so no House of Cards on Netflix. Want Empire? Exclusive on Hulu. Want Downtown Abbey? Exclusively on Prime.
While the big ones will profit from the exclusive deals, consumers and smaller artists/series etc will suffer.
King Tubby
Member
Hahaha what. This is like contrasting 900p and 1080p by showing the black and white scenes of a movie in the former and the color scenes in the latter.
PaulExcellent
Member
Shit, I have friends asking if they should switch because of the artists. >.>
They all use iPod headphones or Beats, so I told them to stick to Spotify...
They all use iPod headphones or Beats, so I told them to stick to Spotify...
It's the same price as Spotify Premium if they don't want/need lossless. I have no idea how the catalogues compare, but I imagine that Spotify's is significantly larger.
PaulExcellent
Member
They're students, so it's only $5.
That's how I got them to stop pirating. >.>
It will be a matter of time before artists will come out and say "look, customers are paying $20 a month for this, and I'm only seeing $0,0014 per stream. That's not fair. That's basically slavery. We're entitled to more money.".
No matter how high you make the monthly fee, as long as a majority of the income is hoarded by recordlabels because of reasons, artists will never be satisfied with the cut they're getting. Problem is; they should take it up with their manager for setting up such a shitty deal and with the label and demand full insight in as to what exactly it is the label does that warrants such a big chunk of a revenue stream that essentially encompasses "select tracks, hit upload, fill out form, done."
No matter how high you make the monthly fee, as long as a majority of the income is hoarded by recordlabels because of reasons, artists will never be satisfied with the cut they're getting. Problem is; they should take it up with their manager for setting up such a shitty deal and with the label and demand full insight in as to what exactly it is the label does that warrants such a big chunk of a revenue stream that essentially encompasses "select tracks, hit upload, fill out form, done."
If the artists have an issue with not getting paid enough by Spotify, they shouldn't have signed contracts that presumably laid out shitty royalties from streaming. Or renegotiate them to get a bette return from the labels.
I assume Spotify is still paying the labels for the free streamers, and they are only just making money. So I don't think Spotify is the bad guy here - the labels will be the only ones making any money
I assume Spotify is still paying the labels for the free streamers, and they are only just making money. So I don't think Spotify is the bad guy here - the labels will be the only ones making any money
I agree on your ignoring data point. But students did pay for music, back in the days when it was physical. Sure for every CD or tape that you sold a bunch of blank tapes would get recorded, but it was still money paid. And students are at the age where you are possibly most passionate about music and discovering what you like. So the demand is clearly there. The problem is that if you're offered something for free why would you choose to pay - especially as a student when you have lots of other priorities and little money.
bort
Member
So he went from saying water is free to water is $6?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/business/media/jay-z-reveals-plans-for-tidal-a-streaming-music-service.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/business/media/jay-z-reveals-plans-for-tidal-a-streaming-music-service.html?_r=1
How much were these people really earning before streaming took off anyway? Album sales get a nice healthy cut from the label (assuming that money goes to producer, etc.) and if they're low on the ladder then they probably weren't selling/making much money off albums anyway.
Yeah it's goddamn ridiculous, it's only the artists earning stupid money already that seem to be complaining about these services, the same ones who have always complained. One day piracy is killing the industry - fair enough, that's people genuinely not paying for it and the concern is valid, now people are paying and THAT's what's killing it now? Streaming is even easier than pirating, it's all right there, instantly. I pay my fee for Google and I'll be damned if I'm taking all this schpiel that I'm as bad as just another pirate.
Hans.Gruber
Banned
He owned like 1% and "designed" the VIP sections of Barclay's arena.
I don't think he will actually be involved in the day2day business with tidal.
Yes but you also have to consider the fact that the Tim Cooks and such are usually on the side of doing the the ripping off than receiving.
You can oppose this tidal initiave but I don't see what there is to gain by pretending the music industry as-is is honkey dorey for the artists.
Shuggananas
Banned
You say this like they always get a say in what happens with their music. Spotify a lot of the times doesn't even have to engage an artist to use their music.
The music industry has a long reaching system in place that largely forces artists who can't afford to support their own music at significant disadvantages. Its not as easy to just not sign a contract when every label has the corrupt practices. I applaud moves like this to take back power from corporations.
I know its hard to care about people who make more money than you but that doesn't mean that they aren't getting screwed.
hobblygobbly
Member
Nobody is going to pay that amount when Tidal doesn't have as good as a catalogue as Spotify + Spotify is cheaper. So much of the mastering of music today is so bad that being lossless isn't that beneficial and for the most part 320kbps is fine. There is some music/genres I listen to where there's an outright obvious difference but I own physical/digital media I purchased straight from their sites and don't use Spotify for.
The only thing TIDAL has going for it is that at least their app isn't absolute shit like Spotify's that has become worse and worse. Every update removes features instead of adding any even. Shit, who the fuck removes CTRL+F to search a song in a playlist or whatever? That shit is so basic, fuck you Spotify (even though I kind of love you)
The only thing TIDAL has going for it is that at least their app isn't absolute shit like Spotify's that has become worse and worse. Every update removes features instead of adding any even. Shit, who the fuck removes CTRL+F to search a song in a playlist or whatever? That shit is so basic, fuck you Spotify (even though I kind of love you)
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll