Jay-Z's TIDAL

Moderators: biscuits, Benjamin

 

Postby Ska8er » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:15 pm

Image

Jay Z's TIDAL Planning Splashy New York Launch Event

Buzz is building on Jay Z's TIDAL, the high-fidelity premium streaming service purchased by S. Carter Enterprises on March 10, which is planning an official launch on March 30.

A countdown clock featured on the TIDAL homepage serves as lead-up to a splashy event to be held in New York City that day.

Details are scant so far, but the rapper-mogul is expected to be in attendance at an afternoon press conference that may also be live-streamed.

TIDAL boasts licenses with the major labels at an established price point of $19.99 per month.
SOURCE

Jay Z's TIDAL On a Wave of Expansion

Jay Z's TIDAL is embarking on a wave of international expansion. The high fidelity music and video streaming service today announced it's now live in 31 countries, including markets across Europe, north America and South Africa.

The service is also poised to extend its reach into all corners of the globe with a rollout of operations into a further six markets -- Poland, Australia, Hong Kong, Quatar, United Arab Emirates and Germany -- before the end of the second quarter.

With an established price point of $19.99 each month, TIDAL boasts licenses with the major labels and a library of 25 million-plus tracks, 75,000 music videos, and curated editorial articles, features and interviews. Its catalog includes most of Taylor Swift's albums (with the exception of 1989), and new releases from Kendrick Lamar (To Pimp a Butterfly) and Modest Mouse (Strangers to Ourselves).

Jay Z purchased TIDAL via his S. Carter Enterprises company following a $56.2 million bid on Jan. 30 (the offer was accepted on March 10). The firm announced earlier this week it had fully integrated the Norwegian music platform WiMP, and the official TIDAL launch is expected to take place March 30.
SOURCE

JAY Z'S STREAMING ASPIRATIONS

Equity Stake for Superstars Could Be a Cornerstone of Proposed Venture

Jay Z’s recently reported gathering of star artists, execs and managers, to discuss his proposed streaming venture has caused quite a stir across the biz. Jay is said to have offered 3% participation to the major artists in attendance, including Beyoncé, Madonna, Rihanna, Pharrell Williams, Kanye West, Coldplay, the Daft Punk robots and Jack White, for their assistance in branding and marketing the company.

Tidal already has a streaming service in place, with all the major and indie music you'll find on its competitors--including the new Kendrick Lamar and Modest Mouse album, Taylor Swift albums, but not 1989--as well as curated playlists, interviews and other "behind the music" content. Its price tag, however, is $19.95 per month, presumably justified by its lossless (super high-quality audio) streams. It's available in North America and Europe but not yet in Asia, Latin America or Africa.

Meanwhile, wonderers are wondering: Could the equity stake be a slippery slope? How do the artists who don’t get a slice feel about the company? How do Apple and Spotify feel about the artists who’ve sold the use of their brand to the newco? In any case, with his reputation for not leaving money on the table, J-Hova always does well in his deals.

The gathering was lo-pro but still managed to be a shot across the bow. Word has it Mr. Carter envisions a challenge to tech behemoths like Spotify, Apple and Google.

The artist/mogul is currently buttoning up the purchase (via the financial entity Project Panther Bidco) of Aspiro, the Swedish firm that owns the WiMP and Tidal streaming platforms, for a cool $56 million.
SOURCE

What do you guys think about all of this? I think that it's an exciting venture but on the other hand I find it to be too expensive.
Rest In Peace Lilly!
User avatar
Ska8er
Legend
 
Posts: 11584
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008

Postby SholasBoy » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:23 pm

Part of me finds it exciting but on the other hand I don't want to see artists opting to be on one platform or another, that's me worry, having to pay to subscribe for two services and not having all your music in one place. That's where the customer will lose out.
User avatar
SholasBoy
Chief Wig Snatcher
 
Posts: 39225
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002
Location: Leeds

Postby Ska8er » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:27 pm

But the fact that this platform is run by an artist and that they will get more money out of it means that they will be more attracted to have their music on it.

It is also rumored that it is going to have some exclusives that will also get the public more interested. I'm just not sure if they are going to be willing to invest so much money for a streaming service.
Rest In Peace Lilly!
User avatar
Ska8er
Legend
 
Posts: 11584
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008

Postby Rihab » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:30 pm

As I said before, if he uses R8 or its singles to attract Spotify users by not making it available there, he's a dead man. :evil:

That said, I think a high fidelity streaming service is a good idea, but not at that price.
Last edited by Rihab on Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rihab
Legend
 
Posts: 17844
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010
Location: Germany

Postby Ska8er » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:38 pm

I can actually see every future Roc Nation releases to be exclusively available to TIDAL. Same goes for Bey and Taylor releases.
Rest In Peace Lilly!
User avatar
Ska8er
Legend
 
Posts: 11584
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008

Postby truthless » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:45 pm

I'm not using any streaming services. But Spotify is much cheaper... 20$ seems way too much. No matter, if it's based on lossless sound. Lossless needs to work with a good output audio player. A casual smartphone with sh*t audiochips/systems won't do the justice here. Even an iPhone does not come close to high quality DAP's (e.g. Fiio X1/X3/X5 series).

So I'm not sure, how he wants to attract audiophile listeners. From what I know, people buy expensive DAP's to play flac/lossless music. As those are actually powerful enough to not weaken the audio output. It also depends on the headphone, obviously. And those DAP's are obviously not able to have certain apps on them. Or at least, I'm not aware of them. My fiio x1 player can't.

Also, those exclusive releases... In my opinion, that simply won't work out. Imagine I'm a spotify premium user. And I'm paying like 10€ per month (And probably cheaper for Students...). After a time, I've known about this new streaming service, which exlusively releases music by different popular artists. First of all, I obviously won't care about all of them. But I imagine they put Eminem on it. As he's my favourite artist, I obviously would think about it. But I wouldn't really change my stream service just because one artist is on it, who I'm a huge fan of. Thats not how it works. I would rather wait till' it's available on other formats to buy it.
User avatar
truthless
Once in a lifetime
 
Posts: 13780
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011
Location: Germany

Postby Guru » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:54 pm

SholasBoy wrote:Part of me finds it exciting but on the other hand I don't want to see artists opting to be on one platform or another, that's me worry, having to pay to subscribe for two services and not having all your music in one place. That's where the customer will lose out.
Artists choosing a specific streaming platform only will fail. I don't see anyone rushing to one platform just because a specific artist is unique to that platform. And that too, an additional subscription over and above another platform. I'm sorry but no artist is THAT worth it imo :roll:
| Ciara | Beyoncé | Janet | Toni | Kelly R | Leona | Tinashe | Whitney | Brandy | Monica | Tevin | Mariah | Britney |
User avatar
Guru
Guru
 
Posts: 24057
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006
Location: On ukmix.org

Postby Ska8er » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:15 pm

But there have been reports about artists not getting the royalties they deserve from streaming services, with Taylor in particular being very vocal about it. And two days ago she made all of her albums (bar 1989) available for streaming on TIDAL. And if all the artists named above are going to be getting an intake from TIDAL, I see them distributing their music exclusively through it.

Another problem I though about: won't the lossless sound take up more bandwith?
Rest In Peace Lilly!
User avatar
Ska8er
Legend
 
Posts: 11584
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008

Postby Serby » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:30 pm

Way to expensive and if Rihanna becomes this shizz's exclusive, bye all the #1s she could have.
User avatar
Serby
Dr. Serby
 
Posts: 35587
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011
Location: Halliwell Manor

Postby toni_pest » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:34 pm

20$ a month? jay's a greedy muthaf
:)
User avatar
toni_pest
Coming Soon
 
Posts: 32115
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007

Postby danbarj » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:50 pm

Everyone has loved streaming here (for the most part, bar me and a few others) so I don't see the problem. I also don't see how $20 is too much. Jay is a professional, but he's FIRST an artist. So he knows the power of royalties and what's considered fair for most artists. Maybe a higher premium allows a better distribution of royalties to the streamed artists.

I know a lot of you like Spotify because it is cheaper, and that makes sense as a consumer, but come on, artists HAVE to eat and there should be competition which benefits them... and not just us.

If you don't like Tidal, don't use it... but $20 per month for unlimited streaming is very fair when 2 albums can be $20.
I was waiting for Bey to drop so she could show that T&A arent the only ones smashing album SALES!!!
User avatar
danbarj
Chief Navy Grio
 
Posts: 18632
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Postby menime123 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:54 pm

Well, Beyonce managed to sell her last album without Spotify listens so I wouldn't be surprised if she becomes an exclusive artist for this. But I find it expensive - Jay Z needs exclusive releases in order to justify the costs, and a whole load of backup content to keep people feeling it's worth it.

Personally I feel Spotify are the market leaders and everything else will eventually give up.
Girls Aloud: only 4 years left of my decade long signature countdown to my dream 20th anniversary reunion tour...
User avatar
menime123
Legend
 
Posts: 12230
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005

Postby Storyteller » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:02 pm

danbarj wrote:Everyone has loved streaming here (for the most part, bar me and a few others) so I don't see the problem. I also don't see how $20 is too much. Jay is a professional, but he's FIRST an artist. So he knows the power of royalties and what's considered fair for most artists. Maybe a higher premium allows a better distribution of royalties to the streamed artists.

I know a lot of you like Spotify because it is cheaper, and that makes sense as a consumer, but come on, artists HAVE to eat and there should be competition which benefits them... and not just us.

If you don't like Tidal, don't use it... but $20 per month for unlimited streaming is very fair when 2 albums can be $20.
User avatar
Storyteller
Cowboy Casanova
 
Posts: 13329
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012
Location: The Good Ol’ Boys Club

Postby Hugo » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:03 pm

Broke bitches, get money!!
"You are Beyoncé!"
"Thank You."
User avatar
Hugo
HAL 9000
 
Posts: 39009
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009
Location: Portugal

Postby menime123 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:11 pm

hugo wrote:Broke bitches, get money!!
Please, they either want album sales or ticket sales! I know which I prefer to buy!
Girls Aloud: only 4 years left of my decade long signature countdown to my dream 20th anniversary reunion tour...
User avatar
menime123
Legend
 
Posts: 12230
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005

Postby truthless » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:23 pm

Im probably alone with this. But I could careless how much money someone like Rihanna gets from this service. Its not like those popular artists are in need of much money. Get real folks. Thats why I dont like that exclusive sh*t. Greedy bitches.

Its not about being broke for me.
Its way too much to pay on a monthly basis. There is a huge difference between to pay for an album once, but for this service every month.

But it is up to you to support this or not. And it's funny to see Taylor siding with this, when her fans couldnt enjoy the album on Spotify. But now she releases it on n Jay's streaming service to earn even more money. She doesn't have to make stuff available on those streaming services, if she thinks that it isn't really worth the money to earn. But what ever makes those artists feel good.

What ever. It is business and I have to accept that. Not that it changes any thing for me though...
User avatar
truthless
Once in a lifetime
 
Posts: 13780
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011
Location: Germany

Postby Hugo » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:29 pm

I don't want TIDAL to have Beyoncé exclusivity, that would only hurt her brand, but I don't mind them having some exclusive bonus material.
"You are Beyoncé!"
"Thank You."
User avatar
Hugo
HAL 9000
 
Posts: 39009
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009
Location: Portugal

Postby SholasBoy » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:31 pm

danbarj wrote:, artists HAVE to eat.
Yes but I don't think Taylor is going hungry :lol:
User avatar
SholasBoy
Chief Wig Snatcher
 
Posts: 39225
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002
Location: Leeds

Postby truthless » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:31 pm

SholasBoy wrote:
danbarj wrote:, artists HAVE to eat.
Yes but I don't think Taylor is going hungry :lol:
I completly overread that one. Damn :lol: :lol:.
User avatar
truthless
Once in a lifetime
 
Posts: 13780
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011
Location: Germany

Postby flopho » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:32 pm

preyan wrote:
SholasBoy wrote:Part of me finds it exciting but on the other hand I don't want to see artists opting to be on one platform or another, that's me worry, having to pay to subscribe for two services and not having all your music in one place. That's where the customer will lose out.
Artists choosing a specific streaming platform only will fail. I don't see anyone rushing to one platform just because a specific artist is unique to that platform. And that too, an additional subscription over and above another platform. I'm sorry but no artist is THAT worth it imo :roll:
This so much.
Shame on me for changing...no, shame on you for staying the same
User avatar
flopho
Legend
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012
Location: Qəbələ, Azerbaijan

Postby LittleLinda » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:56 pm

fpfbm54 wrote:
preyan wrote:
SholasBoy wrote:Part of me finds it exciting but on the other hand I don't want to see artists opting to be on one platform or another, that's me worry, having to pay to subscribe for two services and not having all your music in one place. That's where the customer will lose out.
Artists choosing a specific streaming platform only will fail. I don't see anyone rushing to one platform just because a specific artist is unique to that platform. And that too, an additional subscription over and above another platform. I'm sorry but no artist is THAT worth it imo :roll:
This so much.
Isn't this basically the same situation as with video on demand services? I don't know, I don't use any streaming nor VoD... but with VoD, you also have exclusive shows etc. and might need to either subscribe to more than one or miss out on something that might interest you. It sucks, but on the other hand, competition is good for business. I doubt that major music releases will be "permanently exclusive" to one service, but on the other hand temporary exclusivity would only promote illegal sharing. Who knows how this will develop. Ultimately, it all depends on how the most money can be generated. It's up to the consumer to shape the business.
User avatar
LittleLinda
Manager
 
Posts: 3783
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008
Location: Bavarian Exile, Germany

Postby menime123 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:13 pm

hugo wrote:I don't want TIDAL to have Beyoncé exclusivity, that would only hurt her brand, but I don't mind them having some exclusive bonus material.
Well itunes only didn't hurt her brand did it?
Girls Aloud: only 4 years left of my decade long signature countdown to my dream 20th anniversary reunion tour...
User avatar
menime123
Legend
 
Posts: 12230
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005

Postby danbarj » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 pm

truthless wrote:
SholasBoy wrote:
danbarj wrote:, artists HAVE to eat.
Yes but I don't think Taylor is going hungry :lol:
I completly overread that one. Damn :lol: :lol:.
A common argument on ukmix is that these streaming sites help people to find the "unknown" artist. That artist needs to eat. Furthermore, Taylor ALWAYS said her removing her music from Spotify was due to royalties. As I said, maybe a higher premium will lead to higher royalties. I'm sure she knew and her label knew before signing on with Jay. Regardless of how rich they are, they have a right to make a fair amount of money PER product. You guys are looking at totals. Taylor and Beyonce have done damn fine even in the face of piracy, have done fine without this.
If anything it's a bonus.
I was waiting for Bey to drop so she could show that T&A arent the only ones smashing album SALES!!!
User avatar
danbarj
Chief Navy Grio
 
Posts: 18632
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Postby Ska8er » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:32 pm

menime123 wrote:
hugo wrote:I don't want TIDAL to have Beyoncé exclusivity, that would only hurt her brand, but I don't mind them having some exclusive bonus material.
Well itunes only didn't hurt her brand did it?
That was only for two weeks though. And retailers such as Amazon, Target and Walmart got pissed off with her. Imagine what would happen in a more permanent scenario.
Rest In Peace Lilly!
User avatar
Ska8er
Legend
 
Posts: 11584
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008

Postby stevyy » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:01 am

this is not going to become a success.. too expensive. kids don't even churn out $0,99 for a song no more, $20 per month? ain't happening no matter how many exclusives they will have. the songs will be online anyway.. all over the internet. if anything this will lead to the downfall of streaming altogeter, timmy should rejoice.
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 49805
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Return to Celebrity Gossip