While Tidal will offer exclusive martial from some of music's best stars. Those stars record companies own distribution rights...sounds like this will be best for artists in the long...but how is this going to work starting out?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/business/media/jay-z-reveals-plans-for-tidal-a-streaming-music-service.html?_r=0

I don't know because I don't really use it. But I think it's going to be difficult to get a significant amount of people to move from one platform to another if there aren't any "issues" with the existing platform. Especially these days, when Spotify has becoming pretty much synonymous with streaming music service.

Over 10 years ago you could get people to move from Friendster to MySpace and then from MySpace to Facebook because people had problems with the other platforms. But even today, when most people "hate" Facebook, just about every new social network launched to compete with it has pretty much fallen flat on its face.

So unless Tidal is offering something truly special (exclusive cuts aren't going to do it), or Spotify has become incredibly obnoxious to use, I'm not seeing this working out in the long run.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

this weekend's road trip

+ spotify and youtube, I can't see caring much about another app

the issue is clearly with artists getting paid by these services

I doubt Joe Public cares how much Jay-Z is pocketing from album sales

and, IMO, if that is the angle for this service

branding it with Jay-Z was a mis-step

the general public will probably never associate this service with artists getting more money

if Jay-Z is the face of the brand, i.e. most people probably think he's got enough $$$

and won't see past his riches to actually address the issue

A: No

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

They are going to offer exclusive limited time material from artists. They'll also have no free option, $10 standard and $20 high fidelity option.

>They'll also have no free option, $10 standard and $20 high fidelity >option.

They better have A LOT of exclusive material. By top line artists. A continuous stream of it too. Especially with the "high fidelity" option being the double the per month cost as premium Spoitfy. Or can't get it for free with Pandora.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

...I mean people pitched a bitch when Netflix changed it's pricing plan, and yet no one really left. I know From what I can tell, I can't see this service making a dent in anything unless there is a high demand for exclusive access to Rita Orr tracks.

--------------------

blah blah blah

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2874512&mesg_id=2874512&listing_type=search

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I think the things they're touting - high-fidelity audio quality, editorial content - people aren't willing to pay for. I don't think most people can tell the difference between high quality audio and low quality audio, and even though there's a low quality service for $9.99, I don't even know how well that c an do because of people using the free Spotify service so much (I don't know very many people that even use Beats Music, which is what I've been using for the past few months, and which doesn't have a free version). And as far as the editorial content goes, I actually think it'll be dope, but paid online content doesn't seem to be doing very well. It's already an uphill battle to get people to pay for actual news editorial content; I think it'd be even tougher to get people to pay for editorial content that's music-related.

The question is, how much exclusive content will they be getting, how exclusive are they willing to make it, and how will they be able to keep that content exclusive? Will any of those artists at today's press conference release their music exclusively on Tidal? And if so, how long would they keep it exclusively there, and how would they actually do it? Also, will they offer dibs on concert tickets, discounts on merch, etc.? If so, how often?

What I'm most curious about is how much this will help independent artists. What I saw today was a bunch of industry heavyweights deciding to take things into their own hands, which is great. But how much are indie artists going to benefit from this? If they aren't getting a notably larger percentage, despite the social activist type language used today (which I definitely noticed), how different is this from the conditions they've complained about before? Is having a few artists at the top supposed to make indie artists feel better about supporting another artist instead of suits they don't recognize?

I'm going to get the free trial soon to see how much I like it. But I'm interested to try it out, and to see how it does.

----

https://weketchum.contently.com/

wont make a difference. To hear a difference you need quality headphones


____

TWITTER : Heinz21st

IG : H_N_Z

At the same time, more that half of the population still doesn't own a blu-ray player because DVDs look fine.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

FLAC is worthless with how the average streaming user consumes their music these days (laptop speakers, beats by dre, etc.)

Exclusive content isn't much better because you can just download stuff. If someone only puts their music on Tidal and not Spotify I'm just gonna say "fuck you" and download the shit because I'm already paying for the right to stream your music and if you don't like how much you're getting for that then you need to take that up with your label and Spotify but don't deny me access.

There's only some minor beefs I have with Spotify that Tidal could improve and that's really only with some of their search functionalities. Even if Tidal improved on those it's not enough to get me to change.

If someone only puts their music on Tidal and
>not Spotify I'm just gonna say "fuck you" and download the
>shit because I'm already paying for the right to stream your
>music


how the hell you figure you already paid to stream their music if it's not on spotify?

the American educational system is a failure

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

Think he does pay for Spotify..

Again.. elephant in the room is Youtube.. the minute the record is released it will be ripped, re-uploaded and available for streaming.. and while Jay can try and play wack-a-mole all day with YT uploads it won't be worth it...

I do like that they are giving these artists shares.. but they clearly aren't giving EVERY artist shares so everyone who needs the benefits of ownership won't benefit anyway...

Could be interesting if they give out deals for exclusive content though..

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

right now.

1 that's not what you wrote

2 even if it was what you wrote it sounds stupid as shit. you might have a cable subscription but just because they have a movie up there this month that don't give you forever rights to the shit. smfh. it's a subscription service. you basically saying 7.99 gives you ownership rights to every album they have

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

you sound really pressed about this issue.

smfh

you said I already paid to stream it so I would just download it.

when you downloaded it...where would it be? is that not a form of ownership?

could that same logic be applied to any album available on spotify?

smfh.

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

as much as it's to capture the new customers coming into the streaming realm, because that market is probably nowhere near being mature.

They probably feel that the number of people willing to pay for streaming music is only going to grow from here, as it's obviously the next big delivery method. As data speeds get faster and faster (5G is going to be faster than broadband internet), it's going to continue to be even more appealing.

The most likely competitive edge that they'll have will probably be exclusive windows for new albums where they drop only on Tidal for a week or two before release. This can be a major advantage if the price point for standard streaming is the same. The Hi-Fi option is getting press, but I don't see that as being more than a niche offering. With all that star power, though, I don't see why they'd have a lot of difficulty in bringing people to their standard tier if they can offer legit exclusives.

I currently pay for $9.99/month for Spotify and it's the best ten dollars I spend, and most people I know who have it say the same thing. If Tidal has a comparable or possibly superior catalog, and new albums from noteworthy artists will be made available there first, the real question is, why *wouldn't* people consider making the switch?

----

>the real question is, why *wouldn't*
>people consider making the switch?


because as almost all OKP's and the folks on the comments section on website articles about this are ASSUMING TIDAL has to be more expensive than Spotify for artists to get better royalties.

shit is EXACTLY like Spotify.

>as much as it's to capture the new customers coming into the
>streaming realm, because that market is probably nowhere near
>being mature.
>
>They probably feel that the number of people willing to pay
>for streaming music is only going to grow from here, as it's
>obviously the next big delivery method. As data speeds get
>faster and faster (5G is going to be faster than broadband
>internet), it's going to continue to be even more appealing.

It isn't just a matter of taking people who are already streaming, but appealing to people who would be brand new to streaming altogether

----

https://weketchum.contently.com/

I have a subscription for Rdio, which I vastly prefer to any of the competitors. Keep a free account with Spotify for the few records that occasionally show up there but not on Rdio.

Honestly, I can't think of anything a service would offer that would make me think about leaving. Rdio's almost shot themselves in the foot a few times with redesigns, but they've usually been pretty responsive to feedback from the core community there. Not a huge fan of the interface (can't really say why at this point) but it works. Selection is good. Price is good. Could use better sound quality, sure, but I rarely notice it... and the stuff I want better quality on I'll usually buy anyway.

Would I like to see artists get paid more? Yes. Would I be willing to pay more in order to make that happen? Yes. But I'm not going to even think about switching until I see some hard numbers that prove it's worth it to the average artist, not just to megastars like Taylor Swift.

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

and that's the fact that it keeps playing after my computer goes to sleep.

I wanted to switch to Google Play, because it pays artists more, but they only have
the web player which turns off when my computer does... plus I couldn't repeat single tracks.
These are the exact problems I have with Tidal.

They're also gonna have problems getting people to try it when you have to input
your credit card info just to get the trial.

~
~
~
~
~
Days like this I miss Sha Mecca

i see what the Camel did with getting all of his friends and wife on board. problem is unless you in that clique you ain't gonna feel it.

also all of these acts are established brands and they done peaked and hit there prime.

so no.

i give that turkey hustle props however he knows that he can't make no dent with other services out here and somebody gonna offer an even better deal all Lay Z does is hold somebody else's credit card and charges things.

Mo Money.Mo Money

mistermaxxx R.Kelly, Michael Jackson,Stevie wonder,Rick James,Marvin Gaye,El Debarge, Barry WHite Lionel RIchie,Isleys EWF,Lady T.,Kid creole and coconuts,the crusaders,kc sunshine band,bee gees,jW,sd,NE,JB

Miami Heat, New York Yankees,buffalo bills

People just do not care about the artist enough to want to pay a higher price, which, by the way, is the requirement to making this dream work in the first place. His company will get bought out by Apple or something.

>His company will get bought out by Apple or something.

------------------------------------------
latest mixtape:
https://www.mixcloud.com/mistamonotone/music-to-smack-motherfckers-to/

mistamonotone - taboo
http://mistamonotone.bandcamp.com/album/taboo

@mistamonotone
IG: mistamonotone

And its a massive gimmick.

This is a long-term money grab and Hov is looking for an acquisition.

Jay Z might be the only artist out of those 16 that can take his catalog off the other streaming sites...

And doing that would just make folks want to download it instead...

i pay for Jay-Z's music now by paying for the right to stream it via Spotify.

if he takes his catalog off Spotify, and puts it only on Tidal, i'm not gonna pay for Tidal just to hear Jay-Z. i mean, i probably would just never listen to Jay-Z again but if i wanted to, i'd just D/L his shit.

now, if Tidal somehow becomes the industry standard that's a different story.

this is the inherent problem, especially for people already paying for streaming services: there's no incentive to the consumer (unless you're a big audiophile or want rich people to be richer and really care about their royalties) to use Tidal. Even on Tidal, a very independent artist on some dance music label isn't going to see a significant increase in their streaming royalties over Spotify because there's only so much revenue to be split.

>there's no incentive to the
>consumer
>to use
>Tidal. (over Spotify)

Tidal's first-tier ("standard" quality) is the same price as Spotify ($10/month) and the catalog should be nearly identical if not better. All of the lables who have deals with Spotify have deals with Tidal too.

Add in the fact that because of the artists affiliated with Tidal, you you might be able to hear, say, Kanye's new album on there a month before you can hear it on Spotify, then - with all other things being equal, including price - there's certainly no *disincentive* to use Tidal.

If they can really open up a competitive advantage with exclusive streaming windows where shit streams on their service for a few weeks before it streams anywhere else, then I don't see why people wouldn't pay the same price and go with them instead. I love the service Spotify offers, but I don't have brand loyalty so high that I'd be above switching if Tidal can offer me something that Spotify can't.

----

Windowing doesn't work if Youtube exists...

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

Yeah, I guess, but the point I was responding to was the idea that someone would not have any "incentive" to get Tidal instead of Spotify. If Tidal does have legitimate exclusives in contrast to what other services can offer, and the price is the same, then at that point I'd rather pay $10/month for "standard" Tidal than pay $10/month for Spotify and have to surf Youtube looking for shitting sounding rips of new content.

Just straight downloading shit can undercut exclusive windows too, but Spotify has proved that a lot of people are willing to pay for streaming services, so in that context I was just trying to say that, to people willing to pay for these services, there really can be an incentive to go with one service over the other if one can offer exclusives that the other one can't.

You could easily extend the logic of your youtube argument and say "why would anyone pay for streaming music AT ALL when they can just use youtube", when we know that logic doesn't hold up since 6 million people pay for Spotify.

----

because standard Spotify is completely free.

He is referring to "Standard" quality... The standard quality stream is 10.00/mo HIFI Flac is 19.99/mo

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

unless you have really good headphones/audio systems.

It just doesn;t seem like the general public would give a fuck about why TIDAL 'helps' the artist better.

Even with Jay'z name behind it, I don't think it will matter much...his forays into the digital realm hasn't been all the way up so far (Samsung deal, Life + Times website).

#PicABeat Audio Photo series. Where the beat is inspired by the photo.
http://soundcloud.com/KingAkai

http://kingakai.com

“I love these bitches, man. I really do.”
- Andre 3000

I open up Spotify maybe once every two months — and even then, it's just to preview.


Nardwuar: "Why should people care?"
Archy: "You don't have to care. I don't care. If you like it, you like it."

http://austinato.bandcamp.com

http://www.discogs.com/lists/Favorites-of-2015/222933

Man thinkin about another man. SUS

I don't think this service has to be #1 to work. I could see it be in third place or fourth place and still working when the streaming audience grows. Seems like the messaging is a bit off. Focus seems to be on all the top artists coming together to make more money instead of a service that better connects fans to artists and new music (oh and artist are paid more too).

I think fans would love for artists to get paid more but only when the fans also gets more for their buck too. Instead of editorial content I beleive Tidal should focus on better connections between fans and the artists. Like real album art, credits, thank you's...artist recommending other artists, artist events streamed on Tidal, acoustic sets, exclusive EPs, rap freestyles, more access to band merchandise, accessed tour dates that stream portions live, and music video premieres. Most people just want to stream music and chill but if the pitch is that this is the artists' streaming option, be more artist centric on the content side.

Don't beleive high quality audio is gonna make a difference to to the majority of people who have grown up listening to low quality audio and are not complaining or feeling they losing anything. Perhaps $19 is too steep and $12 or $14 would garner more support for that option.


The real trick we be getting younger acts to join and bring their fan bases. as much as I hate to say this, most of the acts on stage are aging and their fan bases aren't as fanatical. I could only see Beyoncé and RiRis bases changing their listing habits to hear a new album on Tidal first. If One Direction was on that stage you might see kids talking to their parents about getting the new service. I really don't see Madonna, Coldplay, or Daft Punk fans changing to Tidal just because of a paper signing. I could see younger fan bases doing that.


I don't see this not working if the content is unique and fans feel respected. Most the artists on the Tidal launch signing are huge artist with million of dollars so it's kinda hard to feel like your supporting the underdog in the fight but I could see how this could works and be another avenue for music to make money and fans to consume it legally.

_______________________________________
Current Playlist:
2 Chainz - Daniel Son: Necklace Don
Logic - Bobby Tarantino
Folded Like Fabric - Luxeries EP
dvsn - Sept 5th
Drake - Views
Radiohead - A Moon Shaped Pool
Netsky - 3

Which honestly makes me think people are just misinformed about it. Lots of people are completely ignoring the $9.99 option, and other things about the service. But admittedly, that's Tidal's fault - their presentation so far has been really bad. They need to focus more on the product instead of the rhetoric. Hell, even Jay Z's quote about "you pay $6 for a bottle of water when water is free" was out of touch; who pays $6 for a bottle of water?

I think the service can be fine over time if they build a good catalog, get exclusives, and showcase other parts of the service. Finding a way to keep the exclusives exclusive is another issue altogether, but even then, if I've got $9.99 to spend and I can get the same catalog as Spotify while still getting exclusives hassle-free, why get Spotify? They don't have to pass Spotify to win, because the streaming market is expanding enough for multiple companies to eat off of.

----

https://weketchum.contently.com/

I also think not having 'exclusive content" on launch day was a big misstep. Instead of having people think what it would be like. come to the table with some. There was like 11-13 artist on that stage, they couldn't get ONE of them to put some tracks on there for an example of what to expect in the future?

>I also think not having 'exclusive content" on launch day was
>a big misstep. Instead of having people think what it would be
>like. come to the table with some. There was like 11-13 artist
>on that stage, they couldn't get ONE of them to put some
>tracks on there for an example of what to expect in the
>future?


I MEAN...WHAT'S THE POINT OTHERWISE?? sign some damn paper in the privacy of an office somewhere. how do they not see that as potentially offputting to their prospective customers? rich getting potentially richer? who gives a fuck about that?

------------------------------------------
latest mixtape:
https://www.mixcloud.com/mistamonotone/music-to-smack-motherfckers-to/

mistamonotone - taboo
http://mistamonotone.bandcamp.com/album/taboo

@mistamonotone
IG: mistamonotone

that will definitely get a nice amount of 'casual music fans' to get in on it

I don't even use streaming services, but for the right record I could buy in.

phemom's the name, all-star writer/
searching 4 journalistic fame, mindframe igniter....www.twitter.com/hayabusaage

For a few reasons:

1) They pay artists an average of 4.5 cents per stream, compared to Spotify's average of 0.7 cents per stream. Thats a gigantic difference. I only need to stream a 12-song album 18 times to pay an artist $10 for the album. Sometimes I just put albums on repeat all night for the express purpose of trying to put some money in the artist's pocket. With Spotify, I'd need to stream that same album 119 times to achieve the same outcome, which isn't practical for me.

2) I can add 50,000 of my own songs to fill in any gaps that Google's library may have. And to be honest, I rarely have to do this for legit releases. The Cold Chillin stuff isn't on streaming media, assumingly due to the shady deals of those type of labels, so I can add the early Juice Crew stuff on my own. Also, my own beats or beats people send me.

3) The youtube integration is cool. Its kinda subpar right now, but I assume google will work on this moving forward. Its still an advantage over Spotify to have the youtube links immediately available when searching for an artist or song.

Someone above commented that they can't get google to play while their computer is asleep or to repeat songs. I don't have this problem.

Not sure if Tidal can compete with that, but I'd love to try it if it can. I'd like to know the per-stream payout averages before really getting into it. Its important to me to be able to pay the artists a reasonable amount of money for a reasonable amount of streaming. The hi-fi option isn't enough for me, and my musical tastes are too diverse to be swayed by exclusives from a handful of artists.

http://www.omgchrome.com/new-google-play-music-chrome-app-coming/

The standalone is the only thing keeping me on Spotify. Playing music from within
my web browser seems to slow all my other tabs down.
I wanna switch over to Play so bad because of the higher pay to artists.

~
~
~
~
~
Days like this I miss Sha Mecca

its pretty good

i haven't found a good one for windows though.

Jig's up. Nas Won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkkEjPrmP2Q

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

I see they have "They Die by Dawn" streaming exclusively on Tidal now. Erykah posted it on FaceSpace.

he won't take his whole catalog off though...it'll be impressive if he does...

A business needs to establish a competitive advantage. A competitve advantage is an advantage that is sustainable and not easily duplicated by the competition.

BTW I'm sick of people thinking low prices are a competitive advantage. Any company can change their prices to match a competitor. Low prices on the other hand are.

But I digress.

TIDAL's competitive advantage is artists getting a larger piece of the pie. It's not hi-fidelity audio since as someone earlier pointed out, Spotify can easily offer that option.

In this current climate, music is a commodity and getting people to pay for a commodity when what they're paying for is handing artist more of the pie is a bad investment.

I say all this without researching the company, however if my assumptions on this business are true, I'll have to take a pass. I would need to see what exactly their plans are and what they are differientating on to be more accurate.

happiness is a mediocre standard for a middle class existence - S. Williams

I don't not like you because you have dumb ideas about the world, I don't like you because you have other people's dumb ideas about the world. - Rjcc

TIDAL... doesn't control whether the artist gets a larger piece of the pie..

That's the issue.. the rights holder i.e. THE LABEL that these artists are signed to control that.

If TIDAL says.. we pay 70% of out per stream to rights holders... but your deal with the label says you get 3.2% as a royalty from a license AFTER you recoup AND then you split your publishing 50/50 with a Publishing company that also gave you an advance then.... It doesnt matter what TIDAL says..

Jay-z maybe the only person up there besides Jack White that owns his catalog masters. Madonna is signed to Live Nation, Calvin Harris, Cole, Rihanna Roc Nation.. Beyonce is Sony..

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

Well from what I understand at launch its more about the independent unsigned artist however they plan on forcing labels to guarantee a larger percentage voa streaming through tidal.

But my issue is still the same, if this is their intended competitive advantage then this company is no more than an advocacy group.

happiness is a mediocre standard for a middle class existence - S. Williams

I don't not like you because you have dumb ideas about the world, I don't like you because you have other people's dumb ideas about the world. - Rjcc

____________________________________________________________________

San Diego State's holy trinity of sports:
Kawhi Leonard
Marshall Faulk
Tony Gwynn (RIP)

#Aztec4Life

Probably Jigga's plan all along: buy it, boost its value to nine figures, sell it for a profit. That's how venture capitalists get down. Can't knock the hustle.

I guess I could grumble a bit about how it's gonna cost a lot of people jobs, but as a friend pointed out, those jobs are over in Europe. So, ya know, fuck 'em.

http://www.complex.com/music/2016/02/samsung-reportedly-in-talks-to-purchase-jay-z-tidal?

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

SMH. Selling water to a well.

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

Tidal never stood a chance with the tech media that makes or breaks companies at a whim, especially with a rapper at the helm.

It could just be that Jay-Z realises he's fighting a battle that is already rigged against him.

I remember the first criticism was the pricing model, the media went in. Then Apple came out with the same model and it was like the second coming of Christ.

I see it.

Maybe Jay-Z finally does as well.

1. Jay-Z bought Tidal with at least some idea that he was going to eventually sell it off for more money.

2. The Tech Media wanted it to fail.

As I said way at the beginning of the thread, I'm not into streaming. At all. That said, it really didn't seem like their was anything that they had a big enough hook from the outset to be a serious threat to the Spotifys of the world. And when he did use the real hook (exclusive albums from Rhianna and Kanye), it helped drive traffic and the value up enough to start negotiations to sell it to Samsung, a past business partner of his.

Can't knock the hustle.


>I remember the first criticism was the pricing model, the
>media went in. Then Apple came out with the same model and it
>was like the second coming of Christ.

Don't use Apple streaming either.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

Currently been using apple music since it's inception and it has 90% of the music I listen to.

I'm maybe a week into my tidal trial and it's obvious it can't replace my apple subscription. They need to get more artists and albums aboard and fast.

It's almost worth the extra ten dollars a month. But between the relatively limited selection and the lack of a mobile app, the service isn't fully ripened.

<--- Me when my head hits the pillow

What system/headphones are you listening to Tidal on?

I could pick up the better quality using the HiFi option. I could see for alot of albums with poor production quality that the difference would be negligible.

<--- Me when my head hits the pillow