• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Tidal Streaming

IMO "owned by artists" is no guarantee that musicians won't get ripped off. Steve Albini wrote this awhile back:

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an “A & R” rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for “Artist and Repertoire.” because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave.

Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be “hip to the current musical “scene.” A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he’s as naive as the band he’s duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they’re really signing with him and he’s on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in ’85? Didn’t we have a blast. By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody “baby.” After meeting “their” A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, “He’s not like a record company guy at all! He’s like one of us.” And they will be right. That’s one of the reasons he was hired.
The talk of shares IMO sounds like Jay-Z is using the brand power of his name to pump and dump the company. The same way Dr Dre became a billionaire when they sold Beats to Apple. The only reason anyone knows about Tidal is because Jay-Z gets his name in headlines.
 
"Tidal music service flops despite backing from Jay Z, Beyonce and Kanye."

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

"The more money that’s generated, the happier the artists and the labels and the talent suppliers will be.”

To me that's their down fall. They're too concerned with the artists' experience and not the users' experience. It's like a brokerage firm being more concerned with corporate profits and than the investor's profits.
 
The artists (whose work is getting streamed) or the company owners?

It's my understanding that they're the same. Madonna, Kanye and Rehanna were given a percentage of the company. But if you or I got a song on there, I doubt we'd get a percentage.

But as a consumer, I don't see the benefit of choosing them over their competition. If they're all the same, I'll go with the cheapest one.
 
It's my understanding that they're the same. Madonna, Kanye and Rehanna were given a percentage of the company. But if you or I got a song on there, I doubt we'd get a percentage.

But as a consumer, I don't see the benefit of choosing them over their competition. If they're all the same, I'll go with the cheapest one.
I don't think they are the same. My big question is, do the non-owner artists whose music is streamed get higher royalties from Tidal than from competing streaming services? If yes then that's a step up for the artists. If no then I really don't care that Tidal is "artist owned".
 
I don't think they are the same. My big question is, do the non-owner artists whose music is streamed get higher royalties from Tidal than from competing streaming services? If yes then that's a step up for the artists. If no then I really don't care that Tidal is "artist owned".

I get what you're saying. I'd like to know that, too. I'm not sure that information is available yet.
 
It's my understanding that they're the same. Madonna, Kanye and Rehanna were given a percentage of the company. But if you or I got a song on there, I doubt we'd get a percentage.

But as a consumer, I don't see the benefit of choosing them over their competition. If they're all the same, I'll go with the cheapest one.
They aren't the same. Tidal has the option to stream lossless, CD quality music over the 320 kbps files you get from the other streaming services. Tidal does sound better and costs $10 more per month that the others. Whether or not anyone cares enough about sound quality or has the equipment to really make a difference is another issue entirely. It isn't like 320 kbps is horrible or un-listenable.
 
They aren't the same. Tidal has the option to stream lossless, CD quality music over the 320 kbps files you get from the other streaming services. Tidal does sound better and costs $10 more per month that the others. Whether or not anyone cares enough about sound quality or has the equipment to really make a difference is another issue entirely. It isn't like 320 kbps is horrible or un-listenable.

Huh? I mean that the artists and the owners are the same.
 
I use it. If you're a music-head like me, it's worth the $20....of course it's only really worth it if you have a half-decent hi-fi system at home. Massive library (I'm listening to Wire - 154 atm), CD quality sound, easy to use. I like it.

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited: