TIDAL launches second tier streaming service

Mercurial

Active Member
Tidal really need to get their pricing policy sorted out quick!
There's too many variances from country to country, and until they rectify this I think they are doing themselves a great disservice.
They have the opportunity to knock Spotify into a cocked hat with their lossless streaming but price parity is crucial to attract new customers.
I don't think there's any excuse for such a difference in pricing in this day and age. It really beggars the question as to the true worth of the service.
 

invisiblekid

Distinguished Member
Tidal really need to get their pricing policy sorted out quick!
There's too many variances from country to country, and until they rectify this I think they are doing themselves a great disservice.
They have the opportunity to knock Spotify into a cocked hat with their lossless streaming but price parity is crucial to attract new customers.
I don't think there's any excuse for such a difference in pricing in this day and age. It really beggars the question as to the true worth of the service.
Shhhhh! I'm in the UK and not paying UK prices!

But yes your right, pricing is all over place and the number one complaint when the re-launmched as Tidal in the UK and US.

Also given now it's in the hands of the artists, I feel happier knowing they are happy. I know thats a bit odd, but I always thought Spotify etc completely devalued the music market and now there si no way back. Unless something is free or dirt cheap no-one will be interested. I mean going form £10+ an album to £10+ for unlimited albums is crazy. The artists never got a huge amount from royalties and only making any money from contacts. But this days are fast disappearing and I doubt we'll ever see the like of J Kay or Robbie signing for many millions for a few albums.

At least way it seems they are taking control a bit more and appear that that do have a bit of respect for these kind of services.
 

Dextur

Distinguished Member
I saw it very differently.

Very rich artists, charging consumers more a tiny librabary comparatively to Spotify.

What ground my gears more was the way they tried to present this as being good for consumers because it looked after their artists more.

BS, it's just about them grabbing even more money to fill their pockets.

This has nothing to do with improvements to the consumer or them caring about their fans.

IT's more a case of what you can our fans do for us.
 

invisiblekid

Distinguished Member
I saw it very differently.

Very rich artists, charging consumers more a tiny librabary comparatively to Spotify.

What ground my gears more was the way they tried to present this as being good for consumers because it looked after their artists more.

BS, it's just about them grabbing even more money to fill their pockets.

This has nothing to do with improvements to the consumer or them caring about their fans.

IT's more a case of what you can our fans do for us.
Well that's a mute point now though since it's the artists that own it.....well some of.
 

Dextur

Distinguished Member
Yeah, they own it, that was the point, hope it doesn't make the point moot, or I explained it very badly. It's the fact they own it that makes it so relevant.
 

invisiblekid

Distinguished Member
Yeah, they own it, that was the point, hope it doesn't make the point moot, or I explained it very badly. It's the fact they own it that makes it so relevant.
Sorry I thought you meant when Tidal relaunched.

If the prices stay the same, I'd far rather have more of that money going them than a chunk going to Tidal. With possible with exclusive albums and maybe Tidal becoming a record label then there is no middle man making all the money.

With Jay Z behind it I'll bet my hat it's become a record label. In my eye's while I don't care for his music, I'm 100% behind artist taking back control of their music.
 

PocketOperator

Active Member
I'm really sceptical of this whole "owned by artists for artists" approach to streaming services, especially where Jay-Z's concerned. He is ultimately a huge businessman now and is in it for the money and I suspect it's less about giving something back to artists and more about increasing his empire and making a tonne of cash.

I read somewhere else that the money that an actual artist makes from Tidal isn't hugely different from what they'd get on Spotify. While I agree it's good when an artist takes control of their music and how it's sold, I think Jay-Z is a massive control-freak and he's clearly seen an opportunity to get control of music from the publishers and instead take control himself but I doubt very much he's going to re-distribute the profits back to the artists in a fair deal. I don't think he's much different than the record companies and publishing houses he's supposedly rallying against.

I think a lot of artists will continue to get screwed by streaming services as the whole industry is going through a change and doesn't know how to react to the decline in physical sales and the problem of piracy. Until there is an amicable and structured remuneration agreement between the artists, record labels/publishers and streaming services, then this is going to continue to be an issue.
 

invisiblekid

Distinguished Member
I'm really sceptical of this whole "owned by artists for artists" approach to streaming services, especially where Jay-Z's concerned. He is ultimately a huge businessman now and is in it for the money and I suspect it's less about giving something back to artists and more about increasing his empire and making a tonne of cash.

I read somewhere else that the money that an actual artist makes from Tidal isn't hugely different from what they'd get on Spotify. While I agree it's good when an artist takes control of their music and how it's sold, I think Jay-Z is a massive control-freak and he's clearly seen an opportunity to get control of music from the publishers and instead take control himself but I doubt very much he's going to re-distribute the profits back to the artists in a fair deal. I don't think he's much different than the record companies and publishing houses he's supposedly rallying against.

I think a lot of artists will continue to get screwed by streaming services as the whole industry is going through a change and doesn't know how to react to the decline in physical sales and the problem of piracy. Until there is an amicable and structured remuneration agreement between the artists, record labels/publishers and streaming services, then this is going to continue to be an issue.
A nice post

I think your probably right about Jay Z. However it still doesn't change the fact that the site is now owned by a number of artists and I'm fine with that. I hope they all do help other artists and time will tell as to how greedy they could be.

But even so I still rather they make money than a good chunk of it that was going to Tidals old management.

Whatever deals there are, it was enough for Taylor Swift to immediately post all her music on the service. Munford Sons I guess are still not on board lol

I would pay a little more than I do now, simply because without the streaming, to listen to the amount of music I do would cost me a fortune. But as you say I'd would also like to know that Jay Z and his crowd have not just simply replaced the old management. It'll be nice to get more music and exclusives, but as someone who can completely sympathise with the arguments about the pitiful royalties and would like to see them increase with this deal. So for now I'm willing to give Jay Z a shot at this as artists (well all but the top tier ones) have lost all control of their own music.
 

PocketOperator

Active Member
So for now I'm willing to give Jay Z a shot at this as artists (well all but the top tier ones) have lost all control of their own music.
I think that last sentence kind of sums up my problem with Tidal at the moment and that is that really it is only the top tier artists who own and are probably getting the better deal out of the service at the moment. I doubt very much that some smaller artists, indie bands or new artists will get anywhere near the same exposure or cut as all the artists who have so far been associated with and have promoted the new service.

As for the ability to listen to huge libraries of music for a relatively low outlay, I completely understand what you mean with that one. I personally subscribe to Xbox Music (or Zune Music Pass) on my PC and while the streaming quality isn't as good as Tidal's, it does allow me to actually download the music for offline use (albeit in DRM WMA form) and has a much bigger library than Tidal. This means that I tend to find a lot more non-mainstream music on the service than I have on Tidal (I've checked out their search function). Zune costs me just £8.99 a month for unlimited streaming and downloads and I know the sound quality isn't as high as Tidal's (192kbps vs Tidal's FLAC format) but honestly you can't hear that much difference. Unless you have high-end audio equipment like headphones, a good DAC etc, you can't tell that much. I have a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 audio interface and connected to that a pair of Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones, so while not super high-end they're still better than standard headphones and listening through a PC's on-board sound and after using these, I can't hear that much difference in quality.

I listen to a lot of music and probably download on average about 10 albums a week and have nearly 200 new albums yet to listen to on my computer. I also make my own music so I would say I have quite an attuned ear and listen to lots of different genre's of music. In a crowded market of streaming services, I don't think Tidal's sound quality is significantly better than their rivals at double the price and the inability to download the music to your computer is also a negative for me.

Anyway, I'll continue to keep my eye on the service and see how it does but I think they're over-selling the whole hi-fi quality thing and have made it too pricey overall (yes I know there are cheaper subscription options but then how is it any better than Spotify etc?). Plus rich music stars bemoaning about how artists get an unfair deal always turns me off and I am immediately sceptical of them as being more in it for themselves than any altruistic purposes.
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

The Best Movies and TV Shows Coming To Netflix in October 2020. Tom's Thumbs.
Top Bottom