Jump to content

Will Tidal Continue


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Sime said:

This is where I have the issue. Cost vs value to the customer? 

Regardless of the competition, $25 a month for that extensive library! I think it’s undervalued. 

That's the issue I think.   Tidal and paying the artists a decent amount does require more money - say 40-50pm.   Its more than I would probably spend on disks and you get the enormous library of stuff I never heard before.  I would be very happy with that.   But Spotify is free and people these days, by and large, do not worry about the morals of free streaming or sound quality.

 

I personally find Tidal have everything I want and now with MQA have nearly all the stuff I really like - nearly not all - no Peggy Lee Fever on MQA yet - I get those few in Hi Res from DSD or other Hi Res outlets.  But that is just a couple.  Cant find Peggy Lee that way either last time I looked - must take another look.

 

There is ripoffs galore going on in this industry.   One very experienced Audiophile who will go nameless got the super deluxe DSD version of Wallflower and I ripped it to disk for him - personal use only of course - which is legal.  It was just 44.1 up-sampled to DSD.   I ran it through my special programs that covert it to PCM and optimize it.  He says it sounds better.   On Tidal you get three versions of Wallflower - I will let you look them up.   The MQA version is just 48/24 - as is a lot of Tidal MQA stuff.   Not the 96k or higher you would think.  Does it sound better?   IMHO yes - but they probably use similar tricks to what I do.  Here are the two programs I use:

https://www.xivero.com/audiorepair/

https://www.xivero.com/xipodizer/

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest Eggcup The Daft
12 minutes ago, bhobba said:

 

That's the issue I think.   Tidal and paying the artists a decent amount does require more money - say 40-50pm.   Its more than I would probably spend on disks and you get the enormous library of stuff I never heard before.  I would be very happy with that.   But Spotify is free and people these days, by and large, do not worry about the morals of free streaming or sound quality.

 

Thanks

Bill

If others don't worry about the morals, then we still should!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

If others don't worry about the morals, then we still should!

So, I got to wondering about all those internet radio streaming stations.  Seems there is a mechanism for collecting what is due.

http://backboneradio.com/internet-radio-royalty-flows/

https://www.quora.com/Do-Internet-radio-stations-pay-royalties

 

although it may be imperfect.   Does this make it OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radio stations and other venues such as gyms, salons, night clubs have to pay royalties for the use of music in public spaces. 

Edited by PKay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PKay said:

Radio stations and other venues such as gyms, salons, night clubs have to pay royalties to APRA for the use of music in public spaces. 

Oh I know.  I was going to start a small business years ago  - just a workshop building electronics, and believe it or not, there was paperwork to cover music being played in the workplace and the required payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest Eggcup The Daft
21 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

So, I got to wondering about all those internet radio streaming stations.  Seems there is a mechanism for collecting what is due.

http://backboneradio.com/internet-radio-royalty-flows/

https://www.quora.com/Do-Internet-radio-stations-pay-royalties

 

although it may be imperfect.   Does this make it OK?

That covers the start of the flow of money, but where does it end up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sime

It’s a double edged sword for me, I like to buy all my music, but I need streaming like tidal to find said music. I’ve bought loads more stuff I’d never consider because of tidal. If it was to go, there’s no issue with me buying my music, because that won’t change, but it’ll be a lot harder to discover new stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/05/2018 at 8:01 PM, Sime said:

The people paying $10 a month on Spotify do not care about the artists at all, just themselves. 

What a crock and a ridiculous broad statement! For me, there's an asking price and I pay it, the price paid has absolutely no bearing on my appreciation for the artists, must have been pissed when you typed this one Sime!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer

Personally I find that artists are more creative when they are struggling.

There’s a level of comfort that wealthy artists get which is reflected in their music (u2, Metallica etc spring to mind). 

 

Keep ‘em lean and hungry, I say  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest Eggcup The Daft
1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

As per the flow chart?

At one time in the UK (don't know the dates or if it still applies) a system was introduced where when discs were borrowed from libraries, a small royalty was paid to a fund for distribution. So far so good.

However, the distribution was done according to general sales. From what I could gather, the majority of discs in libraries were classical/jazz/folk but the money went to charting pop artists - not so fair.

I believe that under APRA licenses, the music played is often reported and so money should go to the right people. It isn't the case everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sime
56 minutes ago, Hi-Fi Whipped said:

What a crock and a ridiculous broad statement! For me, there's an asking price and I pay it, the price paid has absolutely no bearing on my appreciation for the artists, must have been pissed when you typed this one Sime!

Broad statements have exceptions, and unfortunately you could not see my point without personalizing it. 

My broad statement is based around the likes of people who file share and live on torrent sites. It’s these people who want everything for free, and I’m sorry to say, $10 a month is boarderline. I have no issue if you buy music and use streaming services also, but I’m not a fan of streaming being people’s only music consumption, and yes, it’s my opinion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sime said:

Very selfish responses coming through. No wonder now ones getting paid. 

 

Tidal wants to Survive? Introduce an on demand user pays, what’s the cost to listen to one album where everyone in the food chain gets paid the correct amount?

 

Id pay 50c per album if that’ll stop me from wasting $25 to buy it unheard. 

Well this is the thing, the record companies don't seem too interested in setting  up any sort of convenient online download selling model. If they did I'd  be all over it.

 

Have a look at the Bandcamp link I posted above. Extremely easy to sample and purchase music in CD quality - in the format you prefer.

 

Why something like this isn't available from the mainstream labels is baffling.

Maybe its because they're tied up with regional contracts for selling - which streaming gets around?

Until they fix this, and provide online purchase of all material at reasonable cost, Tidal streaming is the way to go. Artists  are being very poorly served by the major record labels, but what's new?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PKay said:

Radio stations and other venues such as gyms, salons, night clubs have to pay royalties for the use of music in public spaces. 

Supposedly they do - and I think they do - but not much.   A owner of a small shopping mall posted he didn't know about the royalty thing and was sent a letter to pay up.   He said he would as soon as they release audited reports on what exactly gets to the artist.  They refused, so he refuses to pay.   They can of course take him to court and will win - but then they will have to open their books to public scrutiny which I think they do not want to do.   I am sure the artist gets something but the cut of others involved I don't think will bolster the argument it helps the artists - more likely the bottom line of the companies implementing it.  

 

That's another issue with this whole business.   Before the internet middlemen got a huge cut before it reached the artist.  The internet has disrupted that model and they don't like it.  Its obvious streaming is the future and getting rid of all the middle men.  Getting a fair amount to artists is what needs to be worked out.   That's why I think the companies, all of which like Tidal, are running at a loss, want to wait it out - the traditional distribution methods will eventually not be able to survive - they will try all sorts of things of course but I don't think they will win in the long run.  If you want I am sure eventually you will be able to buy stuff from Tidal etc if you want an actual copy.

 

Thanks

Bill  

Edited by bhobba
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Volunteer
37 minutes ago, bhobba said:

Supposedly they do - and I think they do - but not much.   A owner of a small shopping mall posted he didn't know about the royalty thing and was sent a letter to pay up.   He said he would as soon as they release audited reports on what exactly gets to the artist.  They refused, so he refuses to pay.   They can of course take him to court and will win - but then they will have to open their books to public scrutiny which I think they do not want to do.   

 

Sorry Bill, I’m struggling to understand this. 

The owner of the shopping centre has broken the law by not paying royalties. Why on earth would record company need to open their books (either to him or in court).

It’s completely irrelevant  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Sorry Bill, I’m struggling to understand this. 

The owner of the shopping centre has broken the law by not paying royalties. Why on earth would record company need to open their books (either to him or in court).

It’s completely irrelevant  

He is not breaking the law if the company is committing fraud - the reason they claim it needs to be paid is it goes to the artist in payment for producing it in the first place.  All he asked was for them to prove their claim.  If it went to court, and had a half decent lawyer, they would ask for it to be proved and the judge would have to agree - you cant claim the reason you do something is such and such and it not be so.   That's called fraud.  So they will be required, by the Judge, to produce audited records proving it - if they don't its contempt of court and that's jail territory.  I have no doubt they are not lying - they are not committing fraud - but when its disclosed the actual amount that goes to artists and what contributes to their profits would be bad PR - so they would rather let him get away with it than force him to pay it.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tobes said:

Until they fix this, and provide online purchase of all material at reasonable cost, Tidal streaming is the way to go. Artists  are being very poorly served by the major record labels, but what's new?

The major companies don't want a download model - that will totally disrupt their current distribution chain that of course generates profits in itself eg they sell wholesale to retailers etc.  Every link in the chain needs compensation and that will go with a download model.

 

You can have a model like Tidal but instead of paying extra for quality you pay extra to listen to more albums.   Say 20c or something like that for each album you listen to and you can purchase packages for lets say $20.00 to listen to 200 in a month before you pay the 20c.   You can then purchase an album for say $5.00.  Without the middlemen it can be a lot cheaper than normal - but guess what - its the same price as normal retail on the few Tidal has for download/purchase.   Obviously the established companies like Sony do not want to fight with their retailers who would all go out of business if they did that.  Change is hard - look at the fight Cab drivers are putting up against Uber which is a lot cheaper.  They paid in some cases $500,000 for their licences so are understandably very very unhappy.   But technology has a way of disrupting things and while you can try to stop the change in the end, just as it did for the Luddites, it will fail.  Driver-less cars are coming - that will really put a spanner in Cab and Uber drivers as well.  Technological change is only going to accelerate - get used to it - don't fight it.

 

Now we do not condone the pirating of music here and actively speak against it.  But those that do pirate have a point when they say its just a natural reaction to the fact the traditional establishment are so intransigent to change instead of embracing it.  Luddites proved its useless - but people still have not learned.  Sad really - they will fail as all such have failed - it would save a massive amount of angst from both producer and consumer if companies like Sony simply embraced new technology as quickly as possible.  Retail outlets like Sanity will be defunct - but many jobs we currently have will soon be gone - eg with driver-less cars out goes truck drivers etc etc.  They will all be on the scrap heap.   Its sad, as it was sad for the Luddites - we should be working now to help those that will be displaced.   But of course will not - instead like with Uber wait until it happens until something is done - which is usually too late to get a good outcome. 

 

Thanks

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer
1 hour ago, bhobba said:

He is not breaking the law if the company is committing fraud -

I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. 

It’s like going into 7-11 and stealing all their Mars bars and getting let off because they underpaid their workers. 

Theft is theft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. 

 

Really?   I am not a lawyer either but just used a bit of common sense.   I highly doubt you have to pay a bill for something they said they did, but didn't do.   If that was legal we are in really really deep do do.  I could send you a bill for mowing your lawn, driving you to the shops, anything.  If you have to pay for something you didn't get then society would be in a mess.

 

But regardless if these people want their money they will have to take legal action -  he is not going to pay.  The Judge and lawyers involved will know the law - let them decide the matter.  

 

It not my worry.  Its the person that got the bills worry.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited by bhobba
Link to comment
Share on other sites



From what I read online with streaming, I don't think the artists would get much even if they charged $200 p/m. The record companies and everyone in between would manage to take the majority as they always do it seems.

Why would they change their successful greedy model now and start to care about the artist?

Edited by rocky500
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Personally I find that artists are more creative when they are struggling.

There’s a level of comfort that wealthy artists get which is reflected in their music (u2, Metallica etc spring to mind). 

 

Keep ‘em lean and hungry, I say  

Your on to something here. It seems the Industry agrees with you and could be the driving factor the artists are screwed over by everyone.  "Keep ‘em lean and hungry" :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft
5 minutes ago, Sime said:

I’m sure people here wouldn’t like it if their pay was cut in half to make you struggle more ;)

We all know that rich people need to be incentivised to work with more money, and the rest of us must all be lazy so-and-sos because we're not rich, and therefore aren't worth paying much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top