Tidal bullshit...

samzadgan

Anyone seen this..?

Im on mobile so cant link...but search for the video.

Basically a new type spotify which is owned by a group of pop stars which charges listeners $20 subscription.

Their whole idea is that this is artists owning the platform and delivering the best music and quality to the fans.

They diss spotify by saying their platform isnt owned by a corporate company that has advertising on it....but they fail to mention that spotify is free for the fans and theirs isn't

plus the press conference is a fuckin joke...they make it out like they are the founding fathers and signing the decleration of independence...sad, lost and out of touch pop stars!

Also...why do some women is pop music feel its appropriate to always look like whores??

samzadgan

Also...im not supporting spotify...i dont use any streaming service, because a. If i like band i buy their music, usually through bandcamp, then physically then maybe itunes if they have it...and b. I dont like the whole disposable nature of streaming music

Fretwired

I'm pleased as I can now browse through Spotify knowing I won't come across any tracks by Kane West and co. That pleases me ... I like streaming services and I think Spotify offers a great service. If I find music I really like then I buy the CD. I can't see why people complain about streaming - it's like a radio station where you can choose the music.

ToneControl

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/31/jay-z-spotify-music-streaming-relaunch-tidal-support-artist ;

samzadgan

Fretwired;578013" said:

I'm pleased as I can now browse through Spotify knowing I won't come across any tracks by Kane West and co. That pleases me ... I like streaming services and I think Spotify offers a great service. If I find music I really like then I buy the CD. I can't see why people complain about streaming - it's like a radio station where you can choose the music.

Im not complainig about streaming...its just not for me.

Fretwired

samzadgan said:

Fretwired;578013" said:

I'm pleased as I can now browse through Spotify knowing I won't come across any tracks by Kane West and co. That pleases me ... I like streaming services and I think Spotify offers a great service. If I find music I really like then I buy the CD. I can't see why people complain about streaming - it's like a radio station where you can choose the music.

Im not complainig about streaming...its just not for me.

Not you .. Kane West and co.

jd0272

I barely use Spotify but when I do its to dip in and hear if I like, if I like, I buy.

Or to have a sneaky 'listen and learn' for band tracks..

Snap

I use Spotify daily. Its not free, its a tenner a month. I love it. For music I really like, especially if its more ambient or classical, I will buy the CD, primarily cos I want the highest quality audio I can buy. That's my only bug with Spotify, that its not ultra high quality.

Tidal claims that it has hi res audio streams for 20 quid a month. If they can rival the catalogue of Spotify, that may tempt me. I also like the idea that they claim the artist gets more money than from SPotify.

I will keep an eye on it. Similarly watching Neil Young's Pono and Trent Reznor's Daisy. Both hi res formats.

Fretwired

Snap said:

I use Spotify daily. Its not free, its a tenner a month. I love it. For music I really like, especially if its more ambient or classical, I will buy the CD, primarily cos I want the highest quality audio I can buy. That's my only bug with Spotify, that its not ultra high quality.

Tidal claims that it has hi res audio streams for 20 quid a month. If they can rival the catalogue of Spotify, that may tempt me. I also like the idea that they claim the artist gets more money than from SPotify.

I will keep an eye on it. Similarly watching Neil Young's Pono and Trent Reznor's Daisy. Both hi res formats.

If you pat for Spotify ( as I do) then you already get 320kbps playback which is hi-res.

Snap

its not hi res. Its not even CD

 I'm talking about studio master grade reslution. 24 bit audio. I've got all the kit to play it, and it sounds ace. The last NIN album was released on 24bit studio master, and it sounds really good, quite different to the CD.

digitalscream

Pah...apparently they're claiming "lossless" streams. I think it's pretty unlikely they're actually doing lossless streams. 

In any case...they make a big noise about being "artist owned", but ultimately they're still a company owned by rich people. I don't see it being any different for the little people than any other streaming/distribution service, except there are more assholes in charge of this one.

DulcetJones

The one question I have is "how much do artists get when their song gets played" ?  I believe that was the whole idea behind all of the people involved in this because Spotify pays almost nothing but so far I can't find any info on this.

samzadgan

i find the idea that a group of Pop stars having a different agenda to a corporate company with execs a very hard thing to swallow...

now, if they had come out and said, this is not for profit business, and the subscription you pay goes only to artists and maintaining the product...then that would make me buy into their ideals...but its not...its basically a bunch of rich people wanting to get richer by using their names to exploit other artists and fans.

Fretwired

Snap said:

its not hi res. Its not even CD

 I'm talking about studio master grade reslution. 24 bit audio. I've got all the kit to play it, and it sounds ace. The last NIN album was released on 24bit studio master, and it sounds really good, quite different to the CD.

Not sure you can stream 24 bit audio properly. I too have some 24 bit studio masters and they do sound good by 320kbps through a set of headphones is OK for streaming on the move IMHO.

guitargeek62

jd0272;578034" said:

I barely use Spotify but when I do its to dip in and hear if I like, if I like, I buy.

Or to have a sneaky 'listen and learn' for band tracks..

Same here.

digitalscream

The ridiculous thing is that Spotify actually does give money to the artists. Lots of it, and that number's trending upwards over time. In fact, if you assume that an album is played 100+ times during its ownership, artists would make more money from Spotify through their tracks being played as much.

They just don't get it all at once, which is why there's the feeling that it's less lucrative. It also relies on people liking your music enough to keep playing it.

meltedbuzzbox

digitalscream said:

The ridiculous thing is that Spotify actually does give money to the artists. Lots of it, and that number's trending upwards over time. In fact, if you assume that an album is played 100+ times during its ownership, artists would make more money from Spotify through their tracks being played as much.

They just don't get it all at once, which is why there's the feeling that it's less lucrative. It also relies on people liking your music enough to keep playing it.

that depends on the artist. Eminem or someone of that stature will make major cash but there are literally 100s of examples of bands getting 16 cents for 1000s of plays on spotify

Snap

Fretwired said:

Snap said:

its not hi res. Its not even CD

 I'm talking about studio master grade reslution. 24 bit audio. I've got all the kit to play it, and it sounds ace. The last NIN album was released on 24bit studio master, and it sounds really good, quite different to the CD.

Not sure you can stream 24 bit audio properly. I too have some 24 bit studio masters and they do sound good by 320kbps through a set of headphones is OK for streaming on the move IMHO.

you could well be right. I'm sceptical. I nearly signed up to the 20 quid a month, late one Friday evening, fuelled by booze, but the sense kicked in, which is why I'll wait and see. Spotify will take some shifting for sure.

crunchman

I think they will struggle to build up their userbase compared with Spotify.

I would think that most people get into Spotify with the free service, and then upgrade to the paid one to get more than 10 hours per month and to lose the ads.

As there doesn't appear to be a free service on Tidal then I think most new punters are likely to join Spotify.

If Tidal pays the artists significantly more per play than Spotify then I can see artists pulling their music from Spotify.  If enough big artists do that then they might be able to persuade paying customers to switch.

Drew_TNBD

samzadgan said:

Also...why do some women is pop music feel its appropriate to always look like whores??

COZ ALL WOMYN ARE WHORES! AMIRITE LADS!?! OMG OMG !!

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-misogynist-a-man-who-hates-women-as-much-as-women-hate-one-another-h-l-mencken-252593.jpg

Heartfeltdawn

samzadgan said:

Anyone seen this..?

Im on mobile so cant link...but search for the video.

Basically a new type spotify which is owned by a group of pop stars which charges listeners $20 subscription.

Their whole idea is that this is artists owning the platform and delivering the best music and quality to the fans.

They diss spotify by saying their platform isnt owned by a corporate company that has advertising on it....but they fail to mention that spotify is free for the fans and theirs isn't

plus the press conference is a fuckin joke...they make it out like they are the founding fathers and signing the decleration of independence...sad, lost and out of touch pop stars!

Also...why do some women is pop music feel its appropriate to always look like whores??

Is that the fans who don't want to pay for music but pay through the nose for their fucking shitty Beats? 

Sad, lost, and out of touch = describing women pop stars as whores. 

Spotify can go fuck itself.