-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jay-Z takes to Twitter to damage control Tidal rollout
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
- Status
Sectorseven
Member
I don't really know music. Why is a 70% cut considered bad and why are record labels regarded as evil?
The 25% or whatever the label gets doesn't seem too out of line with other industries like hedge funds, and artistically it's not like you need the label to have your vision come to fruition, unlike a big budget movie or game.
The 25% or whatever the label gets doesn't seem too out of line with other industries like hedge funds, and artistically it's not like you need the label to have your vision come to fruition, unlike a big budget movie or game.
Ravensmash
Member
Actually, what happens with independent artists on Spotify etc.?
Surely they actually get a pretty decent deal because there's no record label that takes their share of the cut, but they're still on a huge service available to potentially millions of listeners.
That's Google's market cap he's using. A really lazy way of trying to make Tidal seem small. Besides the value of your service is what matters to people.
FinalStageBoss
Banned
Yes
I'm pretty sure that this is inevitable for a company like Spotify.
Eventually, they'll want to go the Netflix route and move into creating their own original content, and signing their own artists would be the best way to do it.
It seems to be what Netflix is attempting at least.
Of course, funding future music doesn't do anything to get you music that is already owned by the record companies.
LyleLanley
Banned
There's more to the cost of making a successful band than just distribution.
Can't small guys sign up directly with Tidal by passing the record labels?
This post is not worth replying to in a serious fashion so I'll just say.
Well don, you cracked the music industry!
Niki Minaj is just worth 50 million dollars and she doesn't get herself looking like a creepy Japanese sex doll for free... oh no.
New artists suffer because of the heavy weighting big artists with an extensive back catalogue get on a streaming service. Tidal is no different, the same problems will be there and the service is reliant on that.
The owning the music thing is spin. If it's through a label they obviously won't, and if you go through a digital distributor you retain the rights anyway.
The 5% difference is meaningless when the labels are hoovering it up all in the first place. Artists will be seeing a fraction of a fraction of an improvement.
The only ones who stand to gain significantly are the 16 artists who were given 3% of the company, and the labels from the lack of a free tier which they see as an easy way to increase revenue.
The 3 major labels also being shareholders in Tidal, #TidalFacts.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not really. Sure you might not reach certain marketing heights but artists can do very well without a label owning their publishing, taking a cut of their live performances, etc.
crazepharmacist
Member
I have nor see nothing against Tidal. More streaming venues should offer higher quality codec options like Tidal does. I just think a 100% increase in subscription price over my current Google Play subscription for something I may or may not even notice is a bit of a hard sell. If it were only an additional $5 per month at $15 per month that I would probably make the switch.
Hence my question, I don't really know what costs those are.
glaringradio
Member
That Tidal "contract signing" video was completely bizarre... Proper Microsoft 2010 E3 levels of hyperbole combined with sheer embarrassment
Jay-z's mistake was thinking the public gives half a shit about artists getting money. If anything it subconsciously makes people guilty for endless piracy that people feel entitled to. All those years of using the "well piracy only affects the label" excuses as BS. Same with "piracy groups make better rips than MP3 stores." Probably the top 2 excuses used over the years for music piracy. You address those 2 things and still get shit on? Because nobody means it, they are just nasty and entitled.
There is certainly some other "out of touchness" going on but the piling on of hatred is something else entirely.
There is certainly some other "out of touchness" going on but the piling on of hatred is something else entirely.
glaringradio
Member
Nah, Jay Z's mistakes were a) thinking the general public gave a shit about lossless music, and b) thinking that the kind of people who actually gave a shit about lossless music would sign up to a service owned by Jay Z.
Half and half
Member
Haha!
Smooth Operator
Member
Nas won.
So not caring about lossless music then turns into shitting on this product from up on your high horse?
There's more going on here than people just not wanting the service. IMO at least; they are challenging an entire generation of twerps who want everything digital for free.
Nobody is getting anything for free here.
Losless streaming onto a few devices. Tidal is too limited for my liking.
I just watched this video and I'm surprised that someone actually used this as a gif, haha
But 75% of what? It ain't like iTunes where 70% means $0.70.
Delusibeta
Banned
Pretension, mostly. Tidal claims that it's the saviour of the music industry, but from the perspective of the common artist, the only difference between Spotify and Tidal is that Spotify has the major labels as its shareholders and Tidal has several extremely wealthy musicians as its shareholders in addition to the major labels. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same.
From the perspective of the user:
Spotify has a free tier, Tidal doesn't, Spotify wins.
Google Play allows you to upload your collection, Tidal doesn't, Google Play wins.
Amazon Prime Music is bundled with Amazon Prime, Tidal isn't, Amazon Prime Music wins.
Pretty much the only thing Tidal has going for it is the lossless stream option, and frankly the audiophiles who would want a lossless option would probably still go to 7digital/Beatport/Bandcamp/Drip.fm/Pono when that's live and just buy the files.
Which artist owned record labels are these because a google search turned up nothing but the big 3. Jay-z claims he doesn't have a record deal but his last album came out on Universal. Sure it was Roc_A-Fella records by that's just Universal. All these artist like to talk about their record labels but it's all bullshit. You know there is an accountant from Universal/Sony sitting in those offices making sure they don't do anything stupid.
Tidal already claimed 500,000 subscriptions last year. So the power of Madonna mounting a table and and a guy dressed as a robot holding a drink he can't drink added 200,000?
No free ad-supported version. Tidal "free" trial requires a credit card.
Smaller music library.
Inferior software (not their fault, Spotify had a lot of time to work on it).
$20/month is too goddamn expensive. Virtually nobody gives a fuck about FLAC.
No $5 student price.
These are a few of my least faaaaavorite thiiiings.
Smaller music library.
Inferior software (not their fault, Spotify had a lot of time to work on it).
$20/month is too goddamn expensive. Virtually nobody gives a fuck about FLAC.
No $5 student price.
These are a few of my least faaaaavorite thiiiings.
Nope.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-streaming-notebook-20150406-column.html#page=1
Billboard also confirmed it's the 3 major labels.
Holy shit amazing
And those tweets are fucking embarrassing goddamn just stop jay-z...just stop.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Corrected.
I get a lot are ready to write it off, but i sure wouldn't when nothing is set in stone.
----
Well I'll wait and see. So far, from what i've heard of this service outside the circle jerk argument that it's the rich getting richer (as if artist aren't suppose to be paid what they are owed in this industry) and the tone deaf marketing, all that aside, it seems to be going in the right direction. Obviously, if you don't care for the service and what it's doing then actually seeing and hearing what they do next to fix this issue might not be something some would care for but I'm taking notice and will watch. I don't think this is damage control, but explaining what a lot has not given them the time to explain in a 24hr period when it launched fresh from being bought only living for a week since Jay bought it. The media focusing on the launch itself really hurt them, but really didn't want to speak facts about it either.
The same percent Britney Spears, Madonna, and Lady Gaga donate to the communities they helped destroy aka WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO WITH THIS THREAD?
---
Give Tidal the same amount of time Spotify had to reach success and see what happens. This is huge for artists who hate receiving inadequate compensation for millions of plays by users.
You mean the 5% more paid to labels compared to Spotify, while the big three have shareholder stakes in both streaming companies?
Okay.gif
Such is the self proclaimed savior of the music industry
Tidal is basically a copy-cat of Spotify. It's like Amazon Music or Google Play. Other businesses coming along after another company went out on a limb and took the time to develop a service and build a market for something.
The only difference is Google and Amazon's main product differentiator isn't patronage of the arts. Those companies also spent years and years building expertise and a place in the hearts and minds of consumers of the internet over a long period of time. It is easy for a company that is already a house-hold name to enter a business like this. Even with that clout, they aren't a market leader.
Wafflecakes
Member
Tidal is a shit service.
I listen to quite a bit of music, but mostly on radio/youtube, and then songs I really like I buy on itunes (usually only a handful a month).
I don't even sub Spotify because I don't spend $10 a month on music as-is, though I have tried it a few times. $20 is a fucking joke.
DOA
I listen to quite a bit of music, but mostly on radio/youtube, and then songs I really like I buy on itunes (usually only a handful a month).
I don't even sub Spotify because I don't spend $10 a month on music as-is, though I have tried it a few times. $20 is a fucking joke.
DOA
Delusibeta
Banned
So, a version of BBC Introducing with 1% of the reach and a single-service (read: pointless) version of TuneCore. Woo hoo. Literally zero original ideas and still executed badly.
PS: Sounditz doesn't allow uploads of your files, Google Play does. Google also do downloads. Sounditz only converts playlists from one streaming service to another, so you can convert all your Tidal playlists into Spotify playlists. Try again.
Vicetrailia
Member
Tidal can be successful if it is true and transparent, but that itself is too good to be true. The real world sucks, it'll be all peaches and roses marketing overlaying a blackhole. That's how big money is made.
5% to labels and "Indie artists who want to work directly w/ us keep 100% of their music."
Tidal appears to be a great place for indie artists and artists without major label deals to receive better compensation. If Tidal empowers indie artists and gives them a better rate then it is a great service. 5% might not matter to you but 5% changes an artist's life. The big three have shares in a lot of companies so what's your point.
If Taylor Swift launches Tidal then this doesn't receive half the backlash it has. If Madonna launches Tidal this doesn't receive as much scorn. In other words, a lot of this hate has to do with who launched the service and the rollout itself.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Majority of signed artist are under the big three. It's unavoidable and every single music artist who are signed under them have to answer to them. Legally, no service under the sun can offer anyone music under any service without answering to those who own the licensing under those umbrellas, so this argument continues to be weak.
Now as for indies, they have a chance at streaming because they essentially don't need a middleman and shouldn't. It should be easy for them to capitalize on this creating more incentive for them to not be tempted into big contracts with labels and the next. Obviously, streaming is not going to outright fix this issue, but it at least allows people alternatives to making fair money without signing their lives away and sacrificing their true art.
At the end of the day, an indie needs a third party to put music on spotify and somewhat also bandcamp. At least Tidal is doing away with that.
Frustrated_me
Member
What's the purpose of this? I'm embarrassed for her.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
jay getting ethered in this thread
haha
Indie artists can already keep 100% of their royalties from Spotify.
The problem is labels disproportionately hoovering it all up, that will still remain and they want it to remain which is why their own part of Tidal and the service is reliant on them licensing their music. They call the shots, not Tidal, and least of all the artist.
It's an industry attempt to kill free streaming presented as if that is the big problem for artists, it's not.
Spotify's model has grown the industry, streaming is bringing in more revenue than downloads, where it goes is the industry's problem not the consumer's.
- Status