I agree, just like porn (unfortunately), you pay for one site then miss out on the videos on the other ones and ultimately just give up and start streaming illegally ( or so i was told .... by a friend).
Music TIDAL
- Thread starter Sied
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Alicia Keys quoting Nietzsche in a press-conference about über-capitalism. There is so much wrong with that. So much.
Is this the Illuminati doc that the other thread was about?
Is this the Illuminati doc that the other thread was about?
They do have a wave of talent there I'm not disputing that. With the exception of Taylor Swift though not many have or will withdraw their music from Spotify.
You could argue with your second point why would I pay 9.99 for anything when I could get everything for free? From what I've read as well it doesn't seem like many will withdraw all their music from Spotify. Jay-Z is trying to get them to have a week window where it's just on TIDAL and then it can go on everything, which is a nice idea but for an extra tenner saved I think I'd wait the week.
I don't know if you can compare it to headphones either, it's not really the same market. Beats did do well, especially since they're actually awful headphones for their price but it's no guarantee of success.
I don't think it's bitter at all. I'm all for people making money but they signed the contracts, no one forced them to. Look at the collective group on stage as well...it's well over 1billion pounds with of talent I'd suggest. Are normal people REALLY expected to feel sorry for them because they want a bit more money? It's just self indulgent bullshit from a bunch of people detached from reality. They are entitled to royalties....they all get royalties as well.
The fact the companies whole USP seems to be "We don't think we're getting enough money so can you pay 100% more than you're paying at the moment" won't exactly go down that well....that isn't the case for other celebrity endorsed products (i.e. Beats headphones) they argue quality is the difference, whether true or false.
So will these cnuts remove their content from Spotify now?
Yep, it has to be one streaming service and the price should be £5/£5 a month. It's reasonable, people would feel £60/$60 a year for their music collection is a fair deal and would be less inclined to pirate. This is the opposite of that, with fees going the other direction.
Shit, even Netflix is half the price.
Except spotify charges more than that and artists already get screwed.
I'd love to sit and hear Kanye, Jay-Z, Madonna etc sit and try to guess the prices of everyday things normal people buy.
An indie artiste on spotify is not going to make as much money as he would like, are you trying to say that artistes shouldn't bother about receiving royalties because they are already rich? that is bitter IMO. Most artistes make more money off touring than they do from selling records, authors get royalties so why should a musician not fight for his/her money ?
The Beats comparison was more about highlighting the effects of star power, streaming sites and headphones are 2 completely different entities.
The company offers a better quality of music at a higher price,the stance against royalties is really to combat spotify as they are notorious for not paying the artistes so some fans will be sympathetic, aspiring singers and songwriters would benefit more from a competitive market, as it would loosen the strong grip Spotify currently has on the music streaming business ensuring that they increase payments to musicians, the stars are obviously not going to withdraw their music all at once it is a gradual process.
Like i mentioned before, the first phase would be to "get the people talking", the acquisition is barely 3 months old, the company still has a lot of things to do in order to grow, but starting out with "Galacticos" has surely raised awareness.
"Why pay for anything" i think the authorities are working on ways to police piracy on the internet, i don't think illegal streams,links,contents will be as available to the whole world as they are now in the next 10 years.
Its very simple, if you don't like the it .... don't pay.
I hate streaming music, which is why i dont have a spotify account and i probably won't be getting one for TIDAL.
I hate streaming music, which is why i dont have a spotify account and i probably won't be getting one for TIDAL.
Get some indie artists on stage then to profess how bad it is on Spotify etc. Don't get multi-millionaires on telling us of their struggles and then rapping in their new songs about how much money they have. Every single artist on that stage if a big selling artist with a lot of money. People simply won't feel sorry for them for wanting to line their pockets a bit more however hard done by they are. People definitely won't feel sorry when the same artists solution to it is charging the consumer 100% more than it's rivals.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/391615/revealed-how-much-spotify-really-pays-artists
Read that article. Taylor Swift got $6million dollars from Spotify....a company which gave $2billion back to the music industry. It doesn't sound like she's that hard done by to me. The other guy at the bottom is struggling but it doesn't seem like Spotifys fault, it sound like the record label didn't tell him the figures and he's not got a leg to stand on. Unfortunately for people like him as well the music industry is a cut throat one. Everyone wants to be rich, very few people are, especially in music. It takes time to become a Taylor Swift or Jay-Z. I read an article with Florence Welch once (I think it was her) and she made nothing off her first album for years.
From reading and listening to the shit people like Jay-Z spout you'd think they've not received 1p from anyone and they want 100% of the return, that's just not going to happen when the consumer misses out.
You're right and I don't disagree that it benefits some aspiring artists but then where are they in all this? Kanye West, Rihanna, Deadmau5 are hardly underground acts. The whole thing just reeks of another PR exercise from the usual suspects in music....of which the likes of Jay Z and Beyonce always seem to be a part of.
It's raised negative awareness if anything. I hate the expression "No publicity is bad publicity." I've yet to see 1 positive review of it except from the celebrities endorsing it. Bad publicity is bad publicity. It doesn't help that the artists they use divide opinion so much. People like Madonna and Kanye West are pretty much hated by certain people and if it starts negative with the likes of them they'll struggle to amount to anything.
The grim reality for this is that people have been used to paying what they are with Spotify etc and their pricing model is just to high. It'll be like rivaling Netflix and saying "Oh...you can pay 15 quid a month instead or wait a week and get the same service." I reckon most people would either wait the week or just download stufff illegally.
Authorities have been working of a way to stop piracy for years now and it's still around. If you price the consumer out the market it'll go up again as well.
You could make that argument for anything though. It kind of defeats the point of an internet forum to. "Don't like Wayne Rooney? Don't talk about him then."
I won't pay it, but it doesn't mean I won't have an opinion on it. I couldn't imagine it being a great advert for a business either.
Yes, because a bunch of indie guys would appeal more to the customers than established artistes, they are fighting for the music industry, the producers,song writers,established artistes,indie artistes,underground and so on... are they looking to make a profit? yes, who isn't?
Focus more on the cause than the pockets of the artistes, should Lord Sugar be stopped from getting free healthcare for himself and his family as a tax payer and one of the richest men in Britain? Jay Z could be worth £1 or £10 billion it still won't affect Andy who works at Tesco, a lot people already stream music through spotify despite the availability of illegal methods to acquire music for free, they are basically telling you to do the same on a new platform with better quality which ensures Artistes are taken care of, if you pay for music in 2015 then you already care for the artiste so why don't you choose a platform where the artistes are actually better compensated ? some artistes don't put in as much effort as they should and why should they?
Tank (singer) already quit music due to the fact that he wasn't making any money from album sales or streams, artistes not getting enough money from their music is a plague than has been in the industry for a while, the music industry is all dark and gloomy these days so you can definitely understand their plight.
I am not advocating the purchase of music or anything(i don't always buy music), i am just looking at things from the artistes perspective, some people choose to, some people don't and that is fine.
Having an opinion is one thing, writing off the whole business model as just another "get rich quick" scheme is another thing, according to your logic, you would be perfectly fine with 2 nerds from a Yale dorm presenting the idea to millions rather than celebrities, it is basically the same thing, but it somehow loses value because those guys happen to be rich?
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/12/05/successful-indie-artist-actually-makes-spotify
I'll just stick with soundcloud where everything is free and pay for a few worthy albums a year.
Artists. Just artists. Or musicians. Please stop saying artistes.
Well no, but why not let them speak with them? Are indie artists REALLY that busy they can't find 1 or 2 who would be willing to speak for a couple of minutes? People are far more likely to have sympathy with them than they are Madonna, Beyonce or Kanye West. Yes they're entitled to money that's not the point, the point is they aren't sympathetic figures. Especially when they're asking for peoples money.
I don't get your second point at all? What's Alan Sugar going to hospital got to do with Jay Z? I assume it's about cause somewhat. The problem again is that in the case of Jay Z is that they are detached from reality in their problem where as someone being ill and going to hospital has affected "normal" people in the past. Maybe a better comparison would be how would I feel if Alan Sugar's Rolls Royce needed a new set of tyres and he was on Twitter complaining about it? Answer....I couldn't care less about it...because I'm detached from it and have never experienced the problem.
It's not nice for the artists to feel out of pocket of course not but then is it nice for us to be out of pocket to line theirs a bit more? No it's not. It's not my fault that they don't feel they make enough money, it's theirs and their record label. What would Jay Z say if I turned round to him and asked for a bit more cos I don't feel my work is paying me well enough? He'd probably tell me to feck off.
I don't know of Tank and it's a shame that he felt the need to do that. The music industry has always been like that though...so has the movie, TV and any entertainment industry including sports. The reason being is once you're at the top you can make a lot of money. It's a lucrative market and takes time to succeed, not everyone makes it. Everyone wants to be rich...not everyone can be.
It wouldn't bother me either way, I don't mind Jay-Z and admire his business mine to an extent. My problem is that the video shown is just self indulgent bullshit. It's an ego-rub for the rich and famous of the music world. A way to put themselves on a pedestal.
Oh god...how? this is usually said about politicians or ARTISTES @lynchie , whenever they propose something, isolating the cause.
Actually, the CEO of Taylor Swift's record label says that in the year before she quit Spotify, Swift had all her music on Spotify and made less than half a million. Also Swift was a star at 16. Her first album was a top five hit in the US charts and went platinum six times. She also wrote or co-wrote every song on the album and her family owned three percent of her record label. So it didn't actually take her very long at all.
Try reading this article for an alternate take on how streaming services rip-off performers.
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/2...-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/
In America, the whole basis for the business models of things like Spotify, Pandora, are consent decrees that date back to WW2. The Department of Justice is currently reviewing those decrees and groups of musicians/songwriters are preparing a constitutional law case to take the issue to court if the decrees are still in place at the end of this year. In essence, I think the argument is that the digitalization of music has tipped the profit balance too far in favour of technologists and bean-counters to the detriment of the creative talent. I don't suppose this will all be sorted neatly out for years or maybe decades. Meanwhile people like Jay-Z will get richer and richer.
Meet the new boss ...
Maybe I'm in a minority (though by the response to the video I don't think I am) but it is self indulgent.
They're passing something off as benefiting a consumer. What does the CONSUMER get out of this exactly? Not much, the artist gets the benefit or it all. It's a project for artists who have nothing to do and want to help themselves. If that's the case fair enough but at least admit to it. They're talking about changing the world in some interviews etc!! it's a fecking music streaming website, not a cure for cancer and aids!! It's typical of celebrities up their own arse and shocker horror it's the SAME ones every single time (I expect Paul McCartney to release Hey Jude on loop on TIDAL to jump on the band wagon in typical McCartney fashion soon enough.)
Again maybe I'm wrong but the concept of these people complaining about how they're hard done by just doesn't seem that sympathetic. It's the same way I feel about footballers. Make all the money you want that genuninely doesn't bother me but don't cry about it like you'r a victim when somethings not going your way. The "quality" argument is bullshit to, most people play music through an iPhone or whatever, the quality dips there already. I wouldn't pay more money for slightly better quality when I don't have the speakers to match said quality.
It's all well and good saying they'll take the Spotify market. The majority of Spotify uses the free version, the one with ads. Something this TIDAL doesn't want to have. As has been mentioned previously I don't think people will switch if Kanye West decides to go to TIDAL, they'll probably just pirate the music.
Taylor Swift becoming rich quick doesn't really disprove my theory, just means I gave a bad example. Not everyone can make it in the music industry was my point. Some people have to give it up. Taylor Swift is one of the lucky few who will have made a fortune off it and fair enough to her.
The idea of TIDAL is ok, it's nice to have competition it just seems an ego-rub to me. If they don't offer a free service there's no way they're competiting with spotify either, that's where most their market is from! People would rather listen to adverts than pay.
I'm not even sure why I pay for Spotify. I use it but not all that much, will definitely cancel when my student subscription runs out.
Anyway, I hope TIDAL fails.
Anyway, I hope TIDAL fails.
Coming together for the sole reason of making more money for themselves and painting it as anything other than that, in the most pretentious way possible. It'll still feck over the smaller artists. More money for them because they're owners, not because streaming music is extremely lucrative for musicians.
Hope it fails, won't be surprised if it doesn't.
Seems like way for major artists to make more money, essentially.
Coming together for the sole reason of making more money for themselves and painting it as anything other than that, in the most pretentious way possible. It'll still feck over the smaller artists. More money for them because they're owners, not because streaming music is extremely lucrative for musicians.
Hope it fails, won't be surprised if it doesn't.
There's a 9.99$ subscription for standard definition music. Im keeping a positive outlook. Im not worried about the artists at the launch, im more concerned about how TIDAL will compensate unsigned/indie artists. Spotify is a great place to discover new music, but those indie acts don't get paid jack so they're already fecked over with Spotify. Now Jay-Z and a lot of those artists at the launch have all backed and some have even collaborated with indie artists in the recent past, so if TIDAL will offer fair and competitive royalty compensation for these guys then i'll be all for it.
This will pay the same as Spotify though for paid streams. They claim it will pay double but that's only for the "high quality" streams. The normal streams will still pay what Spotify does. Spotify has the benefit of expanding audiences by being free. Forcing a pay model means that they are cutting off potential customers who can't afford $10/20 a month but are willing to listen to ads to get their music. Those who can't afford to stream the music will pirate it. They're eliminating the small amount they get in exchange for likely eliminating any income they will get.
And getting together these people who are so amazingly self-unaware isn't going to help the cause of indie artists.
Are independent bands surprised that they make little to no money whatsoever through streaming? The pay from a single stream is a fraction of a penny. Unless you're getting millions of streams, you're not going to make money from it. I don't think it's as unfair as some people make it out to be. The bigger artists get the same amount of money per stream, but they benefit from getting millions more streams than some independent punk band who release their own 7" singles. I know a number of bands personally who willingly have their music on Spotify, knowing full well the money they get from it is literally pennies, but it's about having the music there for people to discover, and having the music on Spotify has been of an enormous benefit to them.
A friend of mine runs an indie record label, and he and his bands make no more than a few quid per quarter in total (to share out between the bands he has released records by) from Spotify plays. But his direct sales for CDs, LPs and merch have dramatically increased since putting the material on to Spotify. Prior to Spotify, he was losing money on releases. Since Spotify, he's breaking even on them. He actively encourages all his bands to have their music put on to Spotify, even though the return doesn't come from Spotify directly. It comes from people liking the record and buying a physical copy of it, plus merch, going to a show, and whatever else. Independent music has worked in a similar way for a long time, going all the way back to home taping and tape trading and buying the music you discover through it to support the bands.
Independent music was built almost entirely on exposure. Even the first incarnation of Napster had an incredible effect on the independent music industry in terms of people discovering music and then buying that music legitimately. An enormous amount of indie artists were in support of Napster (and even bands as big as Radiohead, The Offspring, Weezer and Public Enemy), even though they made no money from the music being shared. It was the Metallicas and the Madonnas who had a problem with it. The exposure to the music was the bigger picture for independent bands, and a lot of people tend to buy music they like upon discovering it, or they'll go see the band when they tour, buy a shirt etc. A point which Lars Ulrich seemed to miss the first time around. Spotify is obviously more legitimate, and it cuts out the piracy element of it, but the ethos behind the use of it for an independent artist is very similar, having music readily available for people to find, share and discover.
Bands will make very little money from selling/streaming music anyway, even bigger bands. Major artists will always get the bigger slice of the pie, whether it's radio plays, streams on Spotify or getting your CD on the shelves at HMV. As an independent artist especially, with the cost of even producing a record, you're very fortunate if you even break even from writing, recording and releasing a record, as the whole process can cost thousands (and thousands!) to put together. If indie bands aren't happy with the treatment they get from Spotify, then it's easy enough to pull your catalogue from it, or not use it at all in the first place, but what is the alternative for an independent artist? They could put it on Bandcamp and charge whatever they want for downloads (but get absolutely zero for streams), though Bandcamp receives a fraction of traffic that Spotify gets.
Either way, unless you've got a promotional juggernaut behind you in the way of a record company, little money is to be made from recorded music. Nobody wants to pay for mp3s because they are so disposable, and whilst vinyl sales are the highest they've been in decades, it's still considered a niche market. So get in a van, go on tour and merchandise the crap out of your band. You think Glenn Danzig got rich by deciding which high-fidelity online streaming platform to go with? No, it was probably because he put the Misfits logo on anything big enough to print a Misfits logo on to.
A friend of mine runs an indie record label, and he and his bands make no more than a few quid per quarter in total (to share out between the bands he has released records by) from Spotify plays. But his direct sales for CDs, LPs and merch have dramatically increased since putting the material on to Spotify. Prior to Spotify, he was losing money on releases. Since Spotify, he's breaking even on them. He actively encourages all his bands to have their music put on to Spotify, even though the return doesn't come from Spotify directly. It comes from people liking the record and buying a physical copy of it, plus merch, going to a show, and whatever else. Independent music has worked in a similar way for a long time, going all the way back to home taping and tape trading and buying the music you discover through it to support the bands.
Independent music was built almost entirely on exposure. Even the first incarnation of Napster had an incredible effect on the independent music industry in terms of people discovering music and then buying that music legitimately. An enormous amount of indie artists were in support of Napster (and even bands as big as Radiohead, The Offspring, Weezer and Public Enemy), even though they made no money from the music being shared. It was the Metallicas and the Madonnas who had a problem with it. The exposure to the music was the bigger picture for independent bands, and a lot of people tend to buy music they like upon discovering it, or they'll go see the band when they tour, buy a shirt etc. A point which Lars Ulrich seemed to miss the first time around. Spotify is obviously more legitimate, and it cuts out the piracy element of it, but the ethos behind the use of it for an independent artist is very similar, having music readily available for people to find, share and discover.
Bands will make very little money from selling/streaming music anyway, even bigger bands. Major artists will always get the bigger slice of the pie, whether it's radio plays, streams on Spotify or getting your CD on the shelves at HMV. As an independent artist especially, with the cost of even producing a record, you're very fortunate if you even break even from writing, recording and releasing a record, as the whole process can cost thousands (and thousands!) to put together. If indie bands aren't happy with the treatment they get from Spotify, then it's easy enough to pull your catalogue from it, or not use it at all in the first place, but what is the alternative for an independent artist? They could put it on Bandcamp and charge whatever they want for downloads (but get absolutely zero for streams), though Bandcamp receives a fraction of traffic that Spotify gets.
Either way, unless you've got a promotional juggernaut behind you in the way of a record company, little money is to be made from recorded music. Nobody wants to pay for mp3s because they are so disposable, and whilst vinyl sales are the highest they've been in decades, it's still considered a niche market. So get in a van, go on tour and merchandise the crap out of your band. You think Glenn Danzig got rich by deciding which high-fidelity online streaming platform to go with? No, it was probably because he put the Misfits logo on anything big enough to print a Misfits logo on to.
So this is what they talk about at those Freemason devil worshipping meetings.
I'd have maybe bought the whole "this is for artists" thing if they'd actually pushed some artists. The fact that this was just a bunch of millionaires standing in a queue waiting to sign themselves up for some more money makes me skeptical that any artist that wasn't on that stage is going to get any more than those signed up to Spotify do at the moment. Had they opened this with their superstar studded line-up and a bunch of new/unsigned/independent/unheard of artists of varying genres that were going to be getting a big push because of the service then it would have looked a lot better than the weird NWO-esque bollocks we were left with there.
Yeah, I largely agree. The fact that they're unhappy with their current profits on Spotify suggests to me that this is merely their new plaything to try and make more money. If that's the case, I struggle to see them giving a shit about independent and small-time artists. Maybe they're better than that, and maybe they will genuinely help, but many of the big names seem so self absorbed so it'd surprise me.
Watching the music industry flounder at the moment is truly hilarious. It's like they're still unaware that the Internet exists. Or rather, they're aware of its existence but completely blind to what its existence means for concepts like intellectual property.
You can't have "intellectual property" as a direct extension of physical private property in a world where all information can be shared instantaneously and effectively without cost.
You can't have "intellectual property" as a direct extension of physical private property in a world where all information can be shared instantaneously and effectively without cost.
The way they've handled the launch of this has been laughable tbh. They've just come off looking spoilt in all of this, which takes away from the actual legitimate points that they have.
Streaming sucks, I just keep buying CDs. Have an Itunes account if you want easy laptop access. But it looks as if it's heading down the Xbox/PS4 exclusive route, people will have several subscriptions.
Also, feck Jay-Zed.
Also, feck Jay-Zed.
Personally I hope this is a success, I've been feeling really sorry for Jay Z recently given his financial woes.
$560,000,000 just isn't what it used to.
$560,000,000 just isn't what it used to.
That's right, Kanye West too, look at how he has to dress himself these days. I think it was donated from a prison.
It's so bad the picture won't even work.That's right, Kanye West too, look at how he has to dress himself these days. I think it was donated from a prison.
What are your Jay-Z sources on this specifically?
I've bought 10-20 albums in the last year or so of artists I heard on Pandora at work because I don't have a way to listen to my iPod in my office. They're all indie bands that are middle of the road in terms of popularity, but I wouldn't have heard enough of them to buy their album without Pandora or Youtube (both free services that pay artists for plays). If you cut out that service, you lose a large number of potential customers/fans.
I don't mind paying for music, but I don't want to pay for a service that is dependent on me having an internet connection to use it, particularly with data caps on cell phones.
I don't mind paying for music, but I don't want to pay for a service that is dependent on me having an internet connection to use it, particularly with data caps on cell phones.
Can anyone explain what differentiates Pandora from Spotify?
Don't know about Tidal, but Spotify Premium has an offline mode.
Spotify lets you play whatever music you want, when you want it. Except Taylor Swift.
Pandora is more of radio service. You tell it what sort of music you want or favourite bands and it streams "appropriate" or "musically similar" songs at you.
Spotify is the winner there.
Spotify has the same features Pandora has but its also 'on demand' so you can search for and listen to specifically what you want, including full albums. For istance, if you want to listen to Arcade Fire's new album the day its officially released you'll find it there, in addition to their entire catalog of albums (or most of it and this is true for most artists on there). You can't listen to full albums on Pandora, you can only pick artist stations or set playlists. The premium feature on Spotify just allows you to listen without ads.