The Verge: Exclusive albums are the new normal
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Spring Drive
Banned
Won't this boost piracy?
Lil'DigiOp
Member
I've noticed. Its... different. Used to exclusive games not music... But I understand its a solid way to market and guarantee income on an album project. I can't knock artists on finding ways to get paid for their music no matter how much it sucks.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Everyone loves the piracy argument...
But your mother wouldn't know where to go to get the latest Barbra Streisand CD even if we gave her the download link ourselves.
But your mother wouldn't know where to go to get the latest Barbra Streisand CD even if we gave her the download link ourselves.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I'm a little suspicious of the article's claim. The listed artists, except for Drake, are all just people who own Tidal. The real story here is the cartoonish Mr. Monopoly wealth behind Tidal and how a bunch of spoiled rich artists are getting burned with their shit investment because their product is total garbage. This is just absolutely pathetic. How tone deaf could you be.
That's good because Mom doesn't actually want new Streisand, she just wants to hear the old stuff again and again.
That's good because Mom doesn't actually want new Streisand, she just wants to hear the old stuff again and again.
She also wouldn't know how to get to "the Title" to listen to it, let alone want to subscribe to their service.
You can still buy the physical CD, so piracy isn't an answer to the album being exclusive to one streaming service.
However, that's a really inconvenience for streaming service users. It's one thing in PC gaming where you need Steam, Origin and Windows Store if you want to play certain games exclusive to those services, because you pay once and own (the rights to use) the game. Here, on the other hand, if you want to listen to the album (and don't want to buy the CD) you have to pay for the subscription. I really don't like it and I hope artists realize that by taking a part in this "norm" they are fucking their own fans.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that Apple's streaming service pays more than Spotify. So I do think it's a wonderful thing Artist as well in that regard
It stopped when artists realized the money they felt they "deserved" didn't follow that ideology.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I believe the idea is you get an extended release window as it launches exclusive and then later goes wide. Personally I think it is just annoying fans by making them come to you.
I'm hoping (in vain, I suspect) that arcade fires next album isn't tidal exclusive...
Jack Scofield
Member
I'll just listen to it on YouTube, preferably in the lowest quality possible, just to take some kind of weird stand against Tidal.
lastplayed
Member
If I can't find it i'll just listen to something else. That's the good thing about music, there's lots of it.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Why mention just Tidal when Apple Music is doing it also?
The Faceless Master
Member
do they window movies like that? AMC theaters in March, coming to Regal in May!!!
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
However you feel about the whole Tidal thing, you have to admit that the free access Spotify gives everyone is pretty much a joke when it comes to artists seeing any revenue from the listens. Which is why a lot of these people skip Spotify.
Fix-It Felix. Jr.
Member
Despite what the title says, Spotify does dabble in exclusive stuff. There are quite a few popular artists (and not so popular ones) that have done Spotify Sessions and whatnot. It's not as big of a deal as an entire album, but it's there. EITHER WAY, exclusive albums is a really silly concept. I haven't been tempted to get a Tidal subscription once since they started doing this, even with all the free trial they bust out each time a new album by one of the joint owners is released.
Additionally, Spotify (and other services) have the option to import songs that aren't available for streaming, so people can easily pirate those exclusive albums and still have them in their Spotify library lol. Like, it doesn't even matter. Just drop your album in all formats and on all services, and enjoy the profits. Don't be difficult.
Additionally, Spotify (and other services) have the option to import songs that aren't available for streaming, so people can easily pirate those exclusive albums and still have them in their Spotify library lol. Like, it doesn't even matter. Just drop your album in all formats and on all services, and enjoy the profits. Don't be difficult.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
This.
Seems less about going exclusive and more about a group of artists either invested or highly connected to Tidal trying to make their own shit not flop.
The Faceless Master
Member
yes. because i only listen to music in my car...
titiklabingapat
Member
She doesn't have to. She can just ask you, her son/daughter, to do it for her.
May as well be a sponsored article for Tidal.
I agree. While I'm not sure how Bandcamp works when you want to redownload the music few months after buying it (I know the download link you get in an e-mail expires after a while) I love that the service allows you to choose what format you want to download music in.
So rip it, save the music as mp3/flac/wav and put it on your mp3 player of choice? Every single CD I bought within the last 3 or 4 years I've only used once - to rip it and then put back on the shelve.
Diprosalic
Banned
i used tidal in the free months to listen to ye, it was alright.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I mean, does having House of Cards exclusive to Netflix lead to piracy by non-Netflix users? I'm sure it does. But is it meaningful enough for Netflix to give a fuck? Probably not. I think they are trying to apply the same tactic to music. If the next **insert huge pop star here** next album is temporarily exclusive to a certain service (just like House of Cards eventually hits DVD months later) they are probably betting that it will cause most people to re-up or sign up with the service than to turn to some torrent site.
BigJonsson
Member
Most of the bands I like that still release music aren't popular enough to be exclusive, I feel bad for younger fans though
it's all mega stars. music probably benefits from people getting annoyed that they aren't on spotify and looking at their discover playlist instead.
curious if it'll start trickling down to smaller bands. what if the new grizzly bear album is apple music exclusive, for example. like with what you see with indie game developers signing financial deals with sony and ms to reduce risk on their projects. money is pretty thin in music atm.
curious if it'll start trickling down to smaller bands. what if the new grizzly bear album is apple music exclusive, for example. like with what you see with indie game developers signing financial deals with sony and ms to reduce risk on their projects. money is pretty thin in music atm.
This, and I'm sure Apple and Tidal and probably even Spotify have the data to back up that it's a good investment. Imagine if one of them were able to get an exclusive for Adele's next album? Jesus, the sales from that alone would probably fund the service for another five years.
They do for home video/electronic ownership equivalents, and for windows after that.
I accept that this situation is what it is for streaming services. But not being able to just buy albums is pissing me off. Google Play Music still doesn't have the new Beyonce album, or Life of Pablo, even for purchase FFS. I'll happily give you nine quid a go.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Lol
Its going to be far easier to have her subscribe to "The Title" then for her to download it, Ask you what a RAR/ZIP file is... Find her charger cord... Break the USB port. Stare at the CPU for a bit before asking you for help, then tell her she needs iTunes to put music on her iPhone etc etc etc etc
(She's screwed on Android too)
This is why I can't make no damn money
Because 99 problems but Apple ain't one.
Fix-It Felix. Jr.
Member
Or they'll just wait for the album to be released across all services, causing the artist to lose weeks of sales/exposure. Billboard and iTunes is a great advertising platform, but you can't get there if you're isolating your content and limiting who can access it.
Netflix is already the leading provider for movie/TV streaming, by far. Most people won't have to sign up for an additional service on top of what they are already paying for every month. Tidal, on the other hand, is still new and has a much lower user base than Spotify and Apple Music.
Hard to say if we're going into some bold new future or not. Right now I think the exclusives are mostly there because we have an entrenched entity in Spotify and the other companies, one of which is fucking huge with a lot of capital to throw around, wants to dethrone them. If things were more evenly split and they weren't going for all, I think throwing big money at big artists becomes a bit harder to sell.
I could see a future where the labels themselves kind of get left behind for artists working directly with the streaming services, and in those cases I could definitely see exclusivity and the streaming services pushing those artists as the next big thing. The problem with this actually happening is that spotify's royalty payment system doesn't make any fucking sense for that sort of thing. They'd have to negotiate special treatment, and that would kind of turn things upside down.
I could see these initial "exclusives" that this thread is talking about just leading to a lot more piracy of specific things. It's a rather tough sell to jump ship because one artist might have something in another library, but if they're an artist you like, you'll want to hear it. You won't, however, want to pay that same amount to just "rent it" for a month especially when it's so freakishly easy to pirate still.
I could see a future where the labels themselves kind of get left behind for artists working directly with the streaming services, and in those cases I could definitely see exclusivity and the streaming services pushing those artists as the next big thing. The problem with this actually happening is that spotify's royalty payment system doesn't make any fucking sense for that sort of thing. They'd have to negotiate special treatment, and that would kind of turn things upside down.
I could see these initial "exclusives" that this thread is talking about just leading to a lot more piracy of specific things. It's a rather tough sell to jump ship because one artist might have something in another library, but if they're an artist you like, you'll want to hear it. You won't, however, want to pay that same amount to just "rent it" for a month especially when it's so freakishly easy to pirate still.
Statistically the vast (vast) majority of Netflix users have an additional service, either subscription TV or another SVOD service like Amazon.
And I really do mean vast, it's like a 90/10 ratio.
Frustrated_me
Member
I can't believe this video. I really can't believe these fucking idiots thought this was a good idea.
Thank fuck tidal didn't work out.
Fix-It Felix. Jr.
Member
This is what makes it difficult to compare on-demand videos to music. I have everything that you mentioned, but they are all for different reasons. I have Netflix to watch content on-demand, I have subscription TV to watch [new] shows that aren't available on Netflix, and I have Amazon VOD simply because it's part of a much larger package. That's not really the case for streaming services where practically everything is available everywhere, sans a few albums that are kept exclusively for a single service that an artist/label has loyalty to.
WWE Network having exclusive content makes sense, they own a lot of programs.
Apple Music having exclusive content doesn't really make sense, since everything in their library is available on other services. (except that one album which can be easily imported)
Apple Music makes more sense than Tidal, though. Apple/iTunes is a great platform for discovering and buying music, so having them promote your new music with a shiny "EXCLUSIVE!" banner would be great for the artist. It serves both parties, I get that. It's just a bit of a nuisance as a consumer to have to purchase an additional subscription for the price of an album, just to stream one album.
dc3k
Member
I don't think a whole lot of people are going to want to buy a CD player just to listen to a few albums that are playing the exclusive game on streaming sites.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yup
Which are going (are) the majority of music consumers.
The Last Wizard
Member
Piracy does factor into this, I remember people on other boards doing it since it was tidal exclusive. Also the house of cards analogy doesn't fit since Netflix producing that show on their own it's not some third party they're buying exclusivity from. It's definitely annoying not being able to listen to a new album cause of some dumb shit like this.
I'd argue that the artists signing these lucrative exclusive contracts aren't the ones who need the most money. That's not an endorsement for piracy, but this "necessary evil" is coming from the wealthier end of the spectrum.
n00bsauce87
Member
Could a similar argument be made for Netflix and regional licensing?
And the piracy people talk about in obtaining said music is liken to people using VPN to access other regional content? Since VPN blockers are a think, people will then go to piracy to access it.
Or is that a stretch?
Because when I hear exclusive album streaming rights, it makes me think of this.
And the piracy people talk about in obtaining said music is liken to people using VPN to access other regional content? Since VPN blockers are a think, people will then go to piracy to access it.
Or is that a stretch?
Because when I hear exclusive album streaming rights, it makes me think of this.
- Status