Support NeoGAF

[rambis]

If you are really interested in supporting smaller artists buy directly from them or from Bandcamp or something.

Tidal will only make Jay Z richer although hopefully it'll fail miserably and he'll lose a load of money.

If Tidal's cut is really 25% then idk how they stand to gain much anything unless they completely wipe away the competition.

It's not priced very competitively either. Where as you could easily see where artists can make more money via higher royalties and less label dependency.

 

[Cyan]

75%? So this whole AMAZING MUSIC REVOLUTION 4 THE ARTIST is about a 5% revenue cut differential?

SMH

 

[jWILL253]

75%? So this whole AMAZING MUSIC REVOLUTION 4 THE ARTIST is about a 5% revenue cut differential?

SMH

A 5% differential that overall won't matter because most artists signed to labels will only see 5% of the overall royalties.

 

[rambis]

75%? So this whole AMAZING MUSIC REVOLUTION 4 THE ARTIST is about a 5% revenue cut differential?

SMH

If you are trying to simplify it to the point where it is no longer accurate, then yes I suppose you could say that.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I don't think Swift got how the "freemium" model works and just sees that people can sign up for spotify and get her music free. But spotifys methods are hugely disproportionate to smaller artists and probably overpays the top tiers.

And I also don't agree with the she doesn't deserve to complain sentiment. When you have to spend so much of your own money on your music, it becomes increasingly shady that record labels get to keep do much of the returns and even rights. No matter how rich she is, there are smug c-level types that getting a Lions share of money she generates. I don't think that's right at no matter what level.

This is her labels fault and I never liked the idea of her basically calling her fans theives for not going out and spending $20 on her album and even the users who pay $10 on Spotify just to listen to her. It's a slap in the face and saying that we don't respect her nor her craft and that's not fair.

I'm all for her wanting to protect her music, and her craft. I will never go against that. However, don't treat your fans as if they are stealing something from you, labeling us paying and non paying customers supporting a model that keeps pirates at bay as all the same.

Spotify, just like all other deliveries of the medium, are fine enough in their own vacuums. The problem comes with revenues and royalty splits between the labels and the artists/artists' management. 70% of all revenues Spotify makes goes to the right holders... which, 99% of the time, are record labels, not the artists (and that's the case whether in the mainstream, or indie). Now, let's say 70% of the money that the labels receive from Spotify goes into the labels pockets. You, the artist, are then left with 30%.

You think, "Fine, alright, I can live with 30%." Except that now, you have to pay your producers, engineers, background vocalists, featured artists, overhead studio costs, etc. Even worse, let's say you're a rapper. Now, you have a WHOLE ENTIRE ENTOURAGE to pay. That 30% quickly ends up being little more than 5% when it's all said and done.

And when you look at that 5% that you actually got to take home from your physical sales, downloads, radio spins, and streams combined, and you see the label you're signed to pocketing all the money you've worked your ass off to make for them, yet they keep coming to you trying to get into your other revenue streams, they want you to make cookie-cutter songs, getting between you and your art, threatening to shelve you if you don't make the Top 40... what part of this makes you go "THIS IS SPOTIFY'S FAULT!!!!"?

But thus isn't just about top 40 hits. Like the problem here is people are focusing on the top artist but isn't this about caring about the smaller artist?

I've seen so many people are more concerned about how smaller artist benefit from this, but truth be told.. Neither Spotify or Tidal or Pandora and whomever does NOT support them, so why are we championing Spotify as the crowned winner in this affair.

While a good service, it's definitely not the best nor the one in this battle that we should be hailing #Teamspotify if some of these artist that we care about aren't exactly eating.

If you are really interested in supporting smaller artists buy directly from them or from Bandcamp or something.

Tidal will only make Jay Z richer although hopefully it'll fail miserably and he'll lose a load of money.

Ironically, that's too much for some people because some people believe that free.com is still something that they should be owed since they are broke themselves.

 

[MoodyFog]

I'm personally just waiting for the new Beats Music.

 

[rambis]

This is her labels fault and I never liked the idea of her basically calling her fans theives for not going out and spending $20 on her album and even the users who pay $10 on Spotify just to listen to her. It's a slap in the face and saying that we don't respect her nor her craft and that's not fair.

I'm all for her wanting to protect her music, and her craft. I will never go against that. However, don't treat your fans as if they are stealing something from you, labeling us paying and non paying customers supporting a model that keeps pirates at bay as all the same.



But thus isn't just about top 40 hits. Like the problem here is people are focusing on the top artist but isn't this about caring about the smaller artist?

I've seen so many people are more concerned about how smaller artist benefit from this, but truth be told.. Neither Spotify or Tidal or Pandora and whomever does NOT support them, so why are we championing Spotify as the crowned winner in this affair.

While a good service, it's definitely not the best nor the one in this battle that we should be hailing #Teamspotify if some of these artist that we care about aren't exactly eating.



Ironically, that's too much for some people because some people believe that free.com is still something that they should be owed since they are broke themselves.

I'm confused, did she call out the fans or spotify?

 

[Oersted]

If Tidal's cut is really 25% then idk how they stand to gain much anything unless they completely wipe away the competition.

It's not priced very competitively either. Where as you could easily see where artists can make more money via higher royalties and less label dependency.

75%? So this whole AMAZING MUSIC REVOLUTION 4 THE ARTIST is about a 5% revenue cut differential?

SMH

Around 75 percent. We don't know the exact number. Bandcamp gets 15 %, which drops to 10 percent when you reach $5,000 USD in sales. So 85/90 % back to the artists.

 

[Cyan]

If you are trying to simplify it to the point where it is no longer accurate, then yes I suppose you could say that.

Feel free to expand on my simplification. My understanding is that the main selling point here is that it's better for the artist (with undertones of "Spotify is destroying music"). If 5% more of revenue going to the labels is the only difference, it seems incredibly minor. I haven't heard anything about them structuring the revenue division any differently, and that was one of the problems with Spotify for minor artists. *shrug*

I mean, I guess they're also using "lossless" as a secondary selling point, but it seems like a sideshow.

 

[aygomyownroad]

I pay for Google music. Great service.
I wouldn't pay for bottled water.

No free tier. They need to have a trial at least for a month to see what the fuss is about

Spoiler

I wouldn't jump from Google music

 

[……forgetit]

Yeah, a music streaming service without a free option will die. very few care enough to pay to stream anymore, and those that do are already invested in spotify.

 

[jWILL253]

But thus isn't just about top 40 hits. Like the problem here is people are focusing on the top artist but isn't this about caring about the smaller artist?

I've seen so many people are more concerned about how smaller artist benefit from this, but truth be told.. Neither Spotify or Tidal or Pandora and whomever does NOT support them, so why are we championing Spotify as the crowned winner in this affair.

While a good service, it's definitely not the best nor the one in this battle that we should be hailing #Teamspotify if some of these artist that we care about aren't exactly eating.

My point is, it really doesn't matter if you're indie OR Top 40.

Unless you're doing everything, and I mean everything, by yourself and/or remain unsigned, then you gotta have your royalties and masters right. Because it doesn't matter if the label is Universal Music or Rhymesayers... if you don't have your shit together, you're gonna be fucked by either one of them. With or without Spotify....

 

[DECK'ARD]

Feel free to expand on my simplification. My understanding is that the main selling point here is that it's better for the artist (with undertones of "Spotify is destroying music"). If 5% more of revenue going to the labels is the only difference, it seems incredibly minor. I haven't heard anything about them structuring the revenue division any differently, and that was one of the problems with Spotify for minor artists. *shrug*

I mean, I guess they're also using "lossless" as a secondary selling point, but it seems like a sideshow.

The model is exactly the same, the major labels have stakes in Tidal just like Spotify, they can afford to play both off against each other while putting pressure on Spotify to drop the free tier to try and bring in even more revenue as contracts come up for renewal.

There is no revolution going on, it's just the industry putting on an artist-friendly front to pull an anti-consumer move.

All the problems will still remain.

 

[mckmas8808]

That being said, the false equivalence surprises me, and the contempt surprises me even more. The whole argument that people are willing to pay a lot for one thing, so they are also willing to pay a lot for another thing, falls flat on its face, considering water is essentially a priceless resource. Meaning everything in that bottle of water except the bottle itself, is of high value. Music, however, is a commodity, no matter how much money the music actually costs to be made. The water comparison would've made more sense if he said it back in the 90's, where people were buying 10+ song albums off the hype of 2 singles, like buying a full meal when you only wanted the appetizers.

The water thing makes sense in the thinking that he's point is people are willing to pay high dollar for something that "in theory" you should/could get for free.

 

[rambis]

Feel free to expand on my simplification. My understanding is that the main selling point here is that it's better for the artist (with undertones of "Spotify is destroying music"). If 5% more of revenue going to the labels is the only difference, it seems incredibly minor. I haven't heard anything about them structuring the revenue division any differently, and that was one of the problems with Spotify for minor artists. *shrug*

I mean, I guess they're also using "lossless" as a secondary selling point, but it seems like a sideshow.

Yes its better for the artists. In a few ways higher royalties being one.

Something people keep glossing over is this:

Does that mean that artists that are currently on Tidal, when their contracts expire, could have the option of going in lieu of a record company, and work with something like Tidal? JAY Z: I'm on Tidal. I don't have a record deal. So… yes.

Versus Spotify which requires a third party distributor. Albeit we dont know about Tidal in detail, being able to pump music directly into the service without a distro deal is huge.


Another one would probably be their payback model but they also haven't revealed it to full enough extent for me to conclude. Spotify forgoes traditional per stream accounting for some weird reason in favor of a wonky formula that I already posted. There's no reason to assume that Tidal is anything like it.

Another reason is the no free tier thing. If there is no free customer, then revenue is guaranteed to reflect usage closer and promote proper royalty payments.

Just those few factors could increase returns tremendously for independent artists. And with more and more major artists looking to break away from labels, something like this is increasingly attractive.

 

[mckmas8808]

When Taylor left Spotify, it was selfish because she is one of the best selling artist who should be the last person on earth talking about how she doesn't get paid enough. She is getting paid wealthy considering her shows are always sold out and her album sales are through the roof. Having a couple of fans who couldn't pay you and your label directly for your service, does not mean that they are robbing you of something that you don't already have.

Sometimes it's about the principle. It doesn't matter how much money Taylor Swift is/was making. Principle is principle.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yeah, a music streaming service without a free option will die. very few care enough to pay to stream anymore, and those that do are already invested in spotify.

So what about Google Music? I stream music from there and can download the songs for $9.99 a month. And they don't have a free option, but it's not dying so......

 

[Aureon]

THE MARKET WILL BEND TO MY WILL!
No, it won't.
Spotify doesn't offer a free tier out of the good of it's heart.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Yes its better for the artists. In a few ways higher royalties being one.

Something people keep glossing over is this:


Versus Spotify which requires a third party distributor. Albeit we dont know about Tidal in detail, being able to pump music directly into the service without a distro deal is huge.


Another one would probably be their payback model but they also haven't revealed it to full enough extent for me to conclude. Spotify forgoes traditional per stream accounting for some weird reason in favor of a wonky formula that I already posted. There's no reason to assume that Tidal is anything like it.

Another reason is the no free tier thing. If there is no free customer, then revenue is guaranteed to reflect usage closer and promote proper royalty payments.

Just those few factors could increase returns tremendously for independent artists. And with more and more major artists looking to break away from labels, something like this is increasingly attractive.

Tidal is part owned by the labels, all the artists who spoke are on major labels, and are not going to bite the hands that not only feeds them but made them.

All this is about is wanting to kill free streaming because they see that as easy money to be made. Not about redressing any imbalances.

The place for that is things like Bandcamp which the labels have no stake in. That is the future but it's going to take a new generation of artists to willingly buck the system and prove it to work.

It's not going to come from within the industry as it stands, and you are incredibly naive to think that it will.

 

[rambis]

Tidal is part owned by the labels, all the artists who spoke are on major labels, have been made by the industry and are not going to bite the hands that lot only fed them but made them.

You are being incredibly naive, all this is about is wanting to kill free streaming because they see that as easy money to be made. Not about redressing any imbalances.

The place for that is things like Bandcamp which the labels have no stake in, that is the future but it's goog to take a new generation of artists to willingly buck the system and prove it to work.

It's not going to come from within the industry as it stands, and you are incredibly naive to think that it will.

LOL Tidal is owned by Aspiro, which Jay Z's company just bought 90% of. What are you talking about?

And artists are ditching labels more and more. You don't seem to know much of what you are talking about.

 

[2real4tv]

If you are really interested in supporting smaller artists buy directly from them or from Bandcamp or something.

Tidal will only make Jay Z richer although hopefully it'll fail miserably and he'll lose a load of money.

Why the hate for Jay-Z just seems like fan boy crap...I guess some prick we don't know better deserves to be a stakeholder. At least he is materially involved in the music business unlike some of these other corporate idiots who don't even listen to the music they govern over.

 

[……forgetit]

So what about Google Music? I stream music from there and can download the songs for $9.99 a month. And they don't have a free option, but it's not dying so......

Let me rephrase that, a NEW music service without a free option will die, especially one that isn't backed by one of the biggest companies on the planet and is immediately pushed out to the majority of new smartphones bought every year.

 

[Armadilo]

I think Tidal will get music from the popular musicians exclusively and even bring Taylor Swift music back to streaming and thus removing music from Spotify and we all know it's going to happen in order to make this service popular and that's ok in my opinion if it means that Spotify becomes more of an indie station, right now I find an indie song from YouTube and then go to spotify and get happy when I can add it to my playlist. When it comes to these music artist's an extra 5% is a win in their eyes, it's up to the consumers to decide if you want to pay or not and for me I could care less what they do

 

[DECK'ARD]

LOL Tidal is owned by Aspiro, which Jay Z's company just bought 90% of. What are you talking about?

And artists are ditching labels more and more. You don't seem to know much of what you are talking about.

All the major labels have stakes in Tidal, as they do Spotify. The service also requires them to constantly renew contracts for it to work, they have huge leverage. As they are now deploying to try and kill ad supported streaming. The industry is not going to undermine itself.

If an artist wants to ditch a label they already can, on everything from iTunes to Spotify. Tidal is offering nothing new, and uses exactly the same services which have contracts with them just like Spotify.

Stop falling for the same old nonsense that happens everytime the industry is faced by technology that undermines their existing highly-lucrative process of screwing over artists.

Hint: they always blame the consumer.

 

[rambis]

All the major labels have stakes in Tidal, as they do Spotify. The service also requires them to constantly renew contracts for it to work, they have huge leverage. As they are now deploying to try and kill ad supported streaming. The industry is not going to undermine itself.

If an artist wants to ditch a label they already can, on everything from iTunes to Spotify. Tidal is offering nothing new, and uses exactly the same services which have contracts with them just like Spotify.

Stop falling for the same old nonsense that happens everytime the industry is faced by technology that undermines their existing highly-lucrative process of screwing over artists.

Hint: they always blame the consumer.

What are you talking about? Don't know how many times I can ask.

The labels have artists signed to deals, so no Tidal can't go after a lot of their music without engaging the label, but that is where the line is drawn. If there is no deal, then a record label is not involved. Idk what you keep trying to refer to with stakes, but no they dont have ownership in Tidal. And Tidal doesn't require contracts to a label, that's one of the selling points.

Quit trying so hard to appear as the only one with his head out of the sand and actually learn what you are talking about.

 

[DECK'ARD]

What are you talking about? Don't know how many times I can ask.

The labels have artists signed to deals, so no Tidal can't go after a lot of their music without engaging the label, but that is where the line is drawn. If there is no deal, then a record label is not involved. Idk what you keep trying to refer to with stakes, but no they dont have ownership in Tidal. And Tidal doesn't require contracts to a label, that's one of the selling points.

Quit trying so hard to appear as the only one with his head out of the sand and actually learn what you are talking about.

http://m.billboard.com/articles/business/6516945/jay-z-jimmy-iovine-streaming-tidal

Read the paragraph about who owns the company. It's Jay-Z, the artists who spoke, another investor, and the record labels.

The aggregator services are what get artists on services without a label, exactly what Spotify uses and Tidal's site even tells you to use the same ones.

You are falling for spin.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

This whole thing has been a cluster fuck from a pr standpoint. Whoever decided to let Jay Z go on about $6 bottles of water or prepping him about how to not seem so out of touch failed miserably.

As for the product itself, there is often room in the market for a "premium" service or version of a product. Apple has made a killing doing this. Luxury auto makers too. I have yet to see any real demand or market for a "premium" music streaming service. Which is probably why the marketing angle seems to be garnering sympathy for the poor artists rather than selling the service itself on its own merits. Nobody is giving you an extra $10 over Spotifu out of pity, Jay. Especially not when you are out here yapping about $6 bottles of water.

 

[rambis]

http://m.billboard.com/articles/business/6516945/jay-z-jimmy-iovine-streaming-tidal

Read the paragraph about who owns the company. It's Jay-Z, the artists who spoke, another investor, and the record labels.

The aggregator services are what get artists on services without a label, exactly what Spotify uses and Tidal's site even tells you to use the same ones.

You are falling for spin.

I'm confused as to what i'm supposed to be reading. "The record labels" is totally vague. But anyway, which ever labels they are referring to are splitting the other 10% with the rest of the the 120 investors. And since Aspiro is traded on the swedish market and only recently expanded to the US in Oct 2014, I doubt they have significant stock with US labels.

Jay Z and presumably the other artists who were announced bought the 90% share through Jay Zs company.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/aspiro-surged-on-jay-z-tiday-announcement-2015-4?r=US

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/31/jayz-tidal-aspiro-idUSL6N0WX2MI20150331

 

[collige]

This whole thing has been a cluster fuck from a pr standpoint. Whoever decided to let Jay Z go on about $6 bottles of water or prepping him about how to not seem so out of touch failed miserably.

As for the product itself, there is often room in the market for a "premium" service or version of a product. Apple has made a killing doing this. Luxury auto makers too. I have yet to see any real demand or market for a "premium" music streaming service. Which is probably why the marketing angle seems to be garnering sympathy for the poor artists rather than selling the service itself on its own merits. Nobody is giving you an extra $10 over Spotifu out of pity, Jay. Especially not when you are out here yapping about $6 bottles of water.

Yeah, this is my feeling on the matter. The failed the reveal in spectacular fashion, but there's nothing wrong with the concept behind the service itself.

 

[Goldrush]

A bit weird that lossless streaming is hitting the mainstream prior to lossless purchases. The appeal of Tidal would be much better if iTunes launched the long-rumored lossless store and indoctrinate people on the benefits and even the higher price of lossless.

 

[DarkFlow]

I mean sorry if you got offended but you came into thread with this conversation already going asking why should you care about it. If you see the discussion taking place and don't want to take part in it then fine, but to smugly interject "why should I care what you guys are talking about" is just as rude. The consumer angle wasn't really being discussed by us.

Clearly we were discussing different facets of this ordeal.

You're not really discussing anything, all your post sound like PR damage control to me.

You also seem very confused about a great many things.

I'm really not following what you are saying.

I'm not sure where youre coming from

What are you talking about?

I'm confused

 

[Slayven]

Remember when Spotify was going to limit the free option to like 10 hours a month?


They backtracked so fast

 

[Ollie Pooch]

If you are really interested in supporting smaller artists buy directly from them or from Bandcamp or something.

Tidal will only make Jay Z richer although hopefully it'll fail miserably and he'll lose a load of money.

I only discovered band camp recently and have bought a heap of great albums, they were all about 5 bucks too. It's only the days of spending 16+ on an album that are over, for me.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Remember when Spotify was going to limit the free option to like 10 hours a month?


They backtracked so fast

I remember, I was mad as hell even though I only use about 4hrs a month at max.

 

[DOWN]

"We are going to try and make people believe they should pay $6 for water"

 

[DECK'ARD]

I'm confused as to what i'm supposed to be reading. "The record labels" is totally vague. But anyway, which ever labels they are referring to are splitting the other 10% with the rest of the the 120 investors. And since Aspiro is traded on the swedish market and only recently expanded to the US in Oct 2014, I doubt they have significant stock with US labels.

Jay Z and presumably the other artists who were announced bought the 90% share through Jay Zs company.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/aspiro-surged-on-jay-z-tiday-announcement-2015-4?r=US

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/31/jayz-tidal-aspiro-idUSL6N0WX2MI20150331

The later Billboard article about the deal they are doing with Sprint confirms it's the 3 major labels.

When the takeover happened, which needed that 90% minimum, all remaining shares were subject to compulsory purchase.

For the major labels to have a current stake in Tidal they've been reissued, just like to the 16 artists. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that's what the labels got for allowing their biggest artists to be involved and have exclusive content/early releases on it.

Tidal is a lot of talk with precious little detail, because underneath all that talk nothing is any different. Everyone who stands to gain most are the ones who are already gaining most, from the labels to those 16 artists. It's all really disingenuous.

A pro-artist move doesn't have to be anti-consumer, the industry just wants you to believe otherwise. They've even shot down Apple's plans to lower the cost of paid streaming.

Surely you can see what is going on here.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Yeah, this is my feeling on the matter. The failed the reveal in spectacular fashion, but there's nothing wrong with the concept behind the service itself.

The problem with the product/service is that it is twice as expensive as the competition for no real good reason at all. At least not one that appeals to people's wallets. I mean, yeah the sound quality might get a small niche to bite (like that music player Neil Young keeps going on about), but judging by the marketing campaign they aren't looking for a niche audience. What does this do that spotify doesn't for the average consumer? Give a little extra money to the artists? People in general don't give a shit about that, and launching a service seeming around that general message, on top of having a bunch of rich millionare artists as the face of that message, is an easy recipe for a backlash and, ultimately, failure.

 

[rambis]

The later Billboard article about the deal they are doing with Sprint confirms it's the 3 major labels.

When the takeover happened, which needed that 90% minimum, all remaining shares were subject to compulsory purchase.

For the major labels to have a current stake in Tidal they've been reissued, just like to the 16 artists. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that's what the labels got for allowing their biggest artists to be involved and have exclusive content/early releases on it.

Tidal is a lot of talk with precious little detail, because underneath all that talk nothing is any different. Everyone who stands to gain most are the ones who are already gaining most, from the labels to those 16 artists. It's all really disingenuous.

A pro-artist move doesn't have to be anti-consumer, the industry just wants you to believe otherwise. They've even shot down Apple's plans to lower the cost of paid streaming.

Surely you can see what is going on here.

So you are guessing at these details you talk so confidently about?

 

[Frozenprince]

A bottle of water costs $6?

It does if your Jay-Z rich and haven't had to buy something like that for yourself in 25 years.

 

[DECK'ARD]

So you are guessing at these details you talk so confidently about?

For someone who was so positive the labels had nothing to do with Tidal, and then suggested it must be some unimportant Swedish labels, I thought you'd be guessing why the 3 majors own part of it as well. It is rather interesting and counter to their message don't you think?

We'd know more if Tidal was being transparent about all this, rather than Billboard having to dig up the details, but like the specifics of the royalty payments they aren't very forthcoming and would prefer we all talk in terms of movements and revolutions while waving goodbye to free streaming like it fix all the industry's ills.

I agree with DarkFlow, this is like trying to have a conversation with a PR rep.

 

[JABEE]

The problem with the product/service is that it is twice as expensive as the competition for no real good reason at all. At least not one that appeals to people's wallets. I mean, yeah the sound quality might get a small niche to bite (like that music player Neil Young keeps going on about), but judging by the marketing campaign they aren't looking for a niche audience. What does this do that spotify doesn't for the average consumer? Give a little extra money to the artists? People in general don't give a shit about that, and launching a service seeming around that general message, on top of having a bunch of rich millionare artists as the face of that message, is an easy recipe for a backlash and, ultimately, failure.

I would also say that the people interested in high audio quality probably aren't listening to their music over the internet or data. There is a reason these people cling to their vinyls. I would say they are often collectors as well.

The marketing for this is a mess. They are aiming at everyone, but their message only seems to appeal to niche, high-interest listeners that care about the artists.

Jay-Z doesn't seem to understand why people pay extra for bottled water. They don't pay extra for bottled water, because it supports the bottled water industry.

They purchase expensive bottled water for convenience, fashion, and status. You get people to pay extra for bottled water, because it's easier than filling up a thermos with ice cubes and tap. People like walking around with a high-end water bottle in their hand, because it's a status symbol. Lower on the list of differentiation is taste or water quality.

Tidal offers none of these differentiators. Tidal streaming is not instantly recognizable unless they manage to integrate some kind of social media hooks.

They haven't explained how Tidal Music streaming is more convenient than Spotify. It seems like Tidal is just a bunch of musicians grasping at a distribution model that has passed them by. Their model revolves around charging double for a lesser product with no market share.

 

[mhi]

The music industry desperately needs to evolve their revenue streams. They've done okay with the premium streaming subscriptions but really they need to focus on other stuff.

Here are some ideas. The songs themselves should be offered free or for as little cost as possible (via iTunes, YT, soundcloud, etc).

THEN, they can make money from the following ways.

- Live music tours (main source)
- Music video product placement
- Licensing (movies, tv shows, arenas, commercials, etc)
- Artist endorsements
- Appearances (club, awards shows, etc)

Problem is musicians, are humans too so they're looking to maximize earnings anyway possible.

 

[Volimar]

I apologize if this has been answered, but:


How can Tidal end run around the labels and pay artists more? Unless they're paying the labels more as well. Or they're somehow negotiating a bigger cut for artists when they negotiate the rights to play the songs, but I don't see what's in the labels' interests in allowing that.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I apologize if this has been answered, but:


How can Tidal end run around the labels and pay artists more? Unless they're paying the labels more as well. Or they're somehow negotiating a bigger cut for artists when they negotiate the rights to play the songs, but I don't see what's in the labels' interests in allowing that.

They can't, Tidal's pitch is mainly spin.

Tidal hands over 75% compared to Spotify's 70%, that is the extent of the royalty difference, but unless an artist is unsigned it goes to their label which is where all the money disappears as has always been the problem with the industry.

Unsigned artists can keep 100% of the money from Tidal, but they already could on Spotify and the process for getting on the services is exactly the same.

Tidal's aim, and the industry's in general, is just to kill free streaming to try and bring in more revenue from subscriptions. It's just dressing up an anti-consumer move as something more noble, when the problem isn't the amount of money coming in it's where it's been going.

 

[Frozenprince]

If you are trying to simplify it to the point where it is no longer accurate, then yes I suppose you could say that.

No offense man, but the way you're targeting people, subtly belittling their intelligence and knowledge (while hyping your own), and have been carrying yourself through this thread is making you come off as really petty.

There's debate and then there's basically insulting people.

 

[Armadilo]

Deadmau5 going on a rant -http://www.twitch.tv/deadmau5 check the vod if it's over but seems Tidal is for the indie artists and Spotify are for the Labels

 

[DECK'ARD]

.

 

[Goldrush]

For an artist, wouldn't it be beneficial to "raise the value" of music? They might only get 5% more of the revenue, but a part of Tidal subscriber base will probably provide twice as much per stream.

 

[Delusibeta]

Deadmau5 going on a rant -http://www.twitch.tv/deadmau5 check the vod if it's over but seems Tidal is for the indie artists and Spotify are for the Labels

More lies from a shareholder.

 

[rambis]

For someone who was so positive the labels had nothing to do with Tidal, and then suggested it must be some unimportant Swedish labels, I thought you'd be guessing why the 3 majors own part of it as well. It is rather interesting and counter to their message don't you think?

We'd know more if Tidal was being transparent about all this, rather than Billboard having to dig up the details, but like the specifics of the royalty payments they aren't very forthcoming and would prefer we all talk in terms of movements and revolutions while waving goodbye to free streaming like it fix all the industry's ills.

I agree with DarkFlow, this is like trying to have a conversation with a PR rep.

Eh, I expressed a doubt. Idk how that is being so sure or where I brought up a Swedish label(Aspiro is Scandinavian FYI). Also, I don't see anywhere saying that the big three had anything to do with Jay Z' recent majority grab. If they had stock before in the company that's fine but I don't see how it's relevant to the new ownership. Don't see how its counter to any message, you can't force people to give up stock.

If I'm a PR rep, you're a conspiracy theorist playing loose with facts to create some boogey man narrative that's isn't anywhere close to reality.

A lot of this is still very cloudy I agree but its easily understandable seeing as ownership only changed hands a couple weeks ago.