Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT(ish): Tidal music streaming service


Aidan

Recommended Posts

There's been lots of discussion on here about Spotify. Now there's this:

 

Jay-Z promotes 'artist owned' music streaming brand

 

"Will artists make more money? Even if it means less profit for our bottom line, absolutely. That's easy for us. We can do that. Less profit for our bottom line, more money for the artist; fantastic."

 

Will it still be peanuts compared with conventional downloads? My cynical self replies: "Absolutely." I guess we'll have to wait and see...

Studio: Yamaha P515 | Yamaha Tyros 5 | Yamaha HX1 | Moog Sub 37

Road: Yamaha YC88 | Nord Electro 5D

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I've been following this story closely.

 

Signed up for TIDAL about a month ago - interested to checkout the greater audio fidelity claims - but found the service to still be really problematic. (i.e., streaming simply didn't work very well, long waits, etc.). So I cancelled. I'll try again in a few months though and meantime wish the crew behind this a lot of luck in getting it up and running. Hope they're successful.

U1 | NP | NS3 | NE3 HP | K10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting, that's for sure.

 

I've looked into it a bit and am very, very cautiously optimistic. I tweeted at them, asking about their revenue split and they haven't answered. I haven't found any details on their website either. We'll see what happens.

 

I also watched the little launch video/speech. Boyyy did I ever waste my time. Couldn't fast forward, either. :mad: Alicia Keys spoke very convincingly, but man. It's been a while since I've heard rhetoric that self-serving/aggrandizing. Like what, because 13 rich artists start a streaming service, people are going to value music and totally re-evaluate how they listen to it and etc etc etc? I'll believe it when I see it, sister. :rolleyes:

 

My guess is it'll be marginally better for artists. Keyword marginally.

 

By the way, lossless is becoming at least a standard option now, huh?

 

Also, is Pono dead yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not interested. It's Mr Carter's transparent grab for marketshare before Beats ans Reznor get in.

"I have constantly tried to deliver only products which withstand the closest scrutiny � products which prove themselves superior in every respect.�

Robert Bosch, 1919

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, it will be an uphill battle for Tidal once Apple launches the new Beats. Actually for everyone in the streaming business.

 

The claim that they have a plan to develop better contracts with artists is a bit bogus don't you think? seeing as all the artists they rolled out for the launch are signed big record label artists - in which case the licensing of their catalogs is being done with their corporate and/or publishing representation.

Yamaha CP88, Casio PX-560

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the public really doesn't care: they want low cost and wide choices. I doubt their catalog will compare with the others well enough and their costs low enough that they'll get enough subscribers to matter.

 

As an artist, which would you rather have: 75% of a $1, or 10% of $100? Well, I guess you can have both, so there's no harm in trying.

 

I applaud them for their efforts and wish them well, but I'm not optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will it still be peanuts compared with conventional downloads?

 

Tidal may or may not be successful, but I see streaming services surpassing digital downloads (down 13% in 2014) in the very near future.

U1 | NP | NS3 | NE3 HP | K10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, it will be an uphill battle for Tidal once Apple launches the new Beats. Actually for everyone in the streaming business.

 

Why, from what I can tell iRadio has been a flop.

 

Goofy thing is I was using Rhapsody ten years ago (I believe), streaming music from my computer. Worked well. My singer had it and we would share playlists of songs we wanted to work up. $9.99/month.

 

I have Amazon Prime which includes music streaming plus movie/TV streaming and everything else. It's more limited than the others but between it and YouTube I have all the music I need. There are somewhere between 40-50 million Prime users. I wonder how many of them will want to pay $10/month (more than what Prime costs) for music streaming.

 

Busch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you the hard truth...

The kids don't pay for music. That's a foreign concept to anyone under 25.

They listen to youtube. Any song they want to hear is on youtube. They don't care it's been compressed and normalized. So how does a streaming service compete with free? They'd have to get Google to take music off youtube. But any artist that isn't using youtube to reach their audience is dead in the water.

 

Like Moses Avalon in the article above suggests - streaming services target people who can actually pay the Netflix, Sirius, Spotify bills. The kids' parents, who aren't foreign to the concept of paying for music. But the service will have to be amazingly convenient, easy to use, and have everything the geezers want to hear to convince anyone to add yet another recurring monthly bill to their budget. Maybe these services are for the 1 percenters only?

Yamaha CP88, Casio PX-560

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...