Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I do like the functionality of Tidal over Spotify, in terms of using them both through Sonos. Spotify is kind of annoying because I can only play playlists,
That's lame. Is that just for listening through Sonos?
I do like the functionality of Tidal over Spotify, in terms of using them both through Sonos. Spotify is kind of annoying because I can only play playlists,
That's lame. Is that just for listening through Sonos?
Yeah, the spotify service on Sonos leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, if you regularly keep your Spotify up to date and shit, it wouldn't be much of an issue, but Tidal's app on sonos is just easier and what I wished spotify's looked like.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 14, 2015 16:48:32 GMT -5
Death Cab For Cutie put out a new record this year, Ben Gibbard’s post-divorce effort Kintsugi, so perhaps that’s why he’s newly concerned about the future of streaming in the music industry. Following the roll-out of Tidal — Jay-Z’s superstar-sponsored effort to enter the music streaming world — several musicians not included on the cool kid roster have slammed the program. (Or maybe they all read Michael’s great takedown essay and spouted off opinions accordingly). Mumford & Sons and Lily Allen are some of the most prominent musicians to publicly say they don’t like Tidal; mutual distaste can create unlikely bedfellows, eh? Anyway, Gibbard is also decidedly anti-Tidal, too. In a recent interview with The Daily Beast, Gibbard pointed to the company’s emphasis on famous and already ultra-rich musicians, and said he wishes they had instead highlighted some of the ones who actually need the most help from a new kind of streaming service: If I had been Jay Z, I would have brought out 10 artists that were underground or independent and said, ‘These are the people who are struggling to make a living in today’s music industry. Whereas this competitor streaming site pays this person 15 cents for X amount of streams, that same amount of streams on my site, on Tidal, will pay that artist this much.’ I think they totally blew it by bringing out a bunch of millionaires and billionaires and propping them up onstage and then having them all complain about not being paid.
Since nearly everyone who saw the half-assed announcement agrees with Gibbard’s sentiments, this isn’t necessarily a bold statement. Still, at least he’s offering constructive criticism. And Gibbard is definitely closer to the position of independent musicians than Jack White, Beyoncé, or Madonna has been in years. He continues: There was a wonderful opportunity squandered to highlight what this service would mean for artists who are struggling and to make a plea to people’s hearts and pocketbooks to pay a little more for this service that was going to pay these artists a more reasonable streaming rate. And they didn’t do it. That’s why this thing is going to fail miserably.
While I think Gibbard’s idea is a good one, I think people would probably have cared even less if the announcement was coming from a no-name musician instead of Rihanna. Either way, we both agree that Tidal is dumb.
Mumford & Sons also had some negative comments about Tidal. Interesting to see the divide here.
I do like the functionality of Tidal over Spotify, in terms of using them both through Sonos. Spotify is kind of annoying because I can only play playlists, so if I want to hear an album, I have to add it to a new playlist in spotify, then it's svailable through sonos spotify service.. With Tidal, any artists I've favorited within the Tidal app, I can easily browse their entire catalog in the sonos tidal app, which is something I wish spotify could do from the beginning. As far as sound quality goes, I've noticed no difference between spotify(premium) and Tidal, tho I have only tested and compaired with a couple songs by Thee oh sees. I'll try again with music that has much more production put into it.
yo boner, I need to get hooked up with some sonos so I can start using Tidal through my home speakers without using a mini to RCA cable. I know sonos is supposed to be super easy but it's strangely mystifying to me.
Basically what I think I need is:
Sonos Connect, which I then connect to my receiver using coax or optical, then I just control it with an app? Like does the Sonos app have its own Tidal interface or does the Tidal app connect to Sonos? That's the part thats weird to me.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 21, 2015 16:16:37 GMT -5
When Tidal made its big media push at the end of March, the core message was clear: While other streaming music services like Spotify and Pandora pay a pittance to artists, Tidal offers musicians a better deal. Unfortunately, Tidal also opted to use super stars like Nicki Minaj and Beyonce as spokespersons for the app. The result was the ultimate mixed message: You should feel sorry about how little money Nicki makes.
Two weeks after Tidal briefly cracked the U.S. iPhone top 20 download chart, the app has crashed out of the top 700. Apparently American consumers have limited empathy towards Beyonce and Nicki. Soon after the launch fiasco, Tidal’s CEO was kicked out in a “streamlining” move. The new CEO Peter Tonstad, a former consultant for the Norwegian Ministry of Environment, has his work cut out for him.
To make matters worse for Tidal, its main rivals are now surging. On April 20th, Pandora and Spotify occupied positions No. 3 and No. 4 on the U.S. iPhone revenue chart, respectively. This was the first time two music streaming services have hit the top 4 in sales simultaneously. In order to achieve the feat, Pandora and Spotify had to push out Candy Crush Saga out of U.S. iPhone top 4 revenue chart, which is a remarkable achievement.
As a matter of fact, something curious can be seen in Spotify’s download performance right after Tidal media campaign started bashing its allegedly meager payouts. Spotify surged back into the iPad Top 40 download chart on March 31st, right when Tidal’s anti-Spotify invective hit fever peak in American media. This had not happened since November 2014.
It looks like Tidal’s attacks on Spotify and Pandora actually managed to increase public awareness of the services, boosting particularly Spotify’s download performance at the end of March. And now, a few weeks later, the combined revenue performance of the two music apps is hitting a new milestone. To add insult to injury, Beats Music has started cracking U.S. iPhone top 20 revenue chart.
This is the problem with attacking popular apps – negative media coverage often ends up just boosting them. Twitter rode a flurry of mocking or downright hostile news items to mainstream success. Snapchat leveraged sexual panic of US media about naughty photos to becoming a teen obsession. You can’t badmouth a strong app into a decline. In the hyper competitive app market, any media attention buoys apps with genuine consumer appeal.
Tidal is now facing no fewer than three deep-pocketed rival music apps and they’re all minting money and riding strong momentum. The new CEO must somehow find a way to mop up after the ill-advised March launch and find a way to reposition Tidal in a crowded market… preferably by not trying to make consumers feel bad for multimillionaires. Or giving its rivals extra attention.
Just look at these artists representing Tidal. Every one of them is filthy rich. My favorite of the comments in the BGR article "Please give us more money! We have mansions to maintain, lifestyles to support, and vices to feed! Heck, one of them can't even afford a blouse under her ill-fitting jacket. Poor thing!"
Just look at these artists representing Tidal. Every one of them is filthy rich. My favorite of the comments in the BGR article "Please give us more money! We have mansions to maintain, lifestyles to support, and vices to feed! Heck, one of them can't even afford a blouse under her ill-fitting jacket. Poor thing!"
Yea, Ben Gibbard had a good point:
"If I had been Jay Z, I would have brought out 10 artists that were underground or independent and said, ‘These are the people who are struggling to make a living in today’s music industry. Whereas this competitor streaming site pays this person 15 cents for X amount of streams, that same amount of streams on my site, on Tidal, will pay that artist this much.’ I think they totally blew it by bringing out a bunch of millionaires and billionaires and propping them up onstage and then having them all complain about not being paid."
I think Jay-Z/Tidal didn't realize what they were doing. They wanted to overload it with big stars and names so it would get a ton of attention (it did) but the message about not being paid well being given by some of the richest artists in the industry definitely hurt.
Just look at these artists representing Tidal. Every one of them is filthy rich. My favorite of the comments in the BGR article "Please give us more money! We have mansions to maintain, lifestyles to support, and vices to feed! Heck, one of them can't even afford a blouse under her ill-fitting jacket. Poor thing!"
Yea, Ben Gibbard had a good point:
"If I had been Jay Z, I would have brought out 10 artists that were underground or independent and said, ‘These are the people who are struggling to make a living in today’s music industry. Whereas this competitor streaming site pays this person 15 cents for X amount of streams, that same amount of streams on my site, on Tidal, will pay that artist this much.’ I think they totally blew it by bringing out a bunch of millionaires and billionaires and propping them up onstage and then having them all complain about not being paid."
I think Jay-Z/Tidal didn't realize what they were doing. They wanted to overload it with big stars and names so it would get a ton of attention (it did) but the message about not being paid well being given by some of the richest artists in the industry definitely hurt.
Jay-Z seemed to just forget what the whole point of this project was supposedly supposed to be, which is exactly what you just said, provide for struggling musicians. Again reiterating what Ben said pretty much, none of these people in that photo are struggling in the least bit.
You guys. All those stars have an equity stake in the company. They won't see any profit off Tidal until royalties are paid out to artists whose music is being played. So if Tidal pays more in royalties than Spotify to artists (and from what I've read, they do), Ben Gibbard is gonna get a bigger cut when his music is played there. That sounds like a good thing to me.
If he would rather sit around and wait for the music streaming business to become a non-profit collective, I suppose that's his right. But if I were him I'd cash the check and STFU.
However his check from Spotify is going to be significantly higher due to the amount of streams on Spotify as opposed to Tidal.
You guys. All those stars have an equity stake in the company. They won't see any profit off Tidal until royalties are paid out to artists whose music is being played. So if Tidal pays more in royalties than Spotify to artists (and from what I've read, they do), Ben Gibbard is gonna get a bigger cut when his music is played there. That sounds like a good thing to me.
If he would rather sit around and wait for the music streaming business to become a non-profit collective, I suppose that's his right. But if I were him I'd cash the check and STFU.
However his check from Spotify is going to be significantly higher due to the amount of streams on Spotify as opposed to Tidal.
I was just changing my comment to something like this. Everyone was so quick to trash TIDAL because rich pop stars are the worst and shit, now it's driving every one back to Spotify so artists can continue to get dicked with lower royalties. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face, everyone.
I can't wait for Apple to come out with their Beats-based Spotify competitor. Everyone is gonna flock to it because instead of a small share of the profit going to a couple hateable millionaire pop-stars, it'll go to a couple billionaire industrialists, and somehow we'll convince ourselves that that's a better deal.
However his check from Spotify is going to be significantly higher due to the amount of streams on Spotify as opposed to Tidal.
I was just changing my comment to something like this. Everyone was so quick to trash TIDAL because rich pop stars are the worst and shit, now it's driving every one back to Spotify so artists can continue to get dicked with lower royalties. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face, everyone.
I can't wait for Apple to come out with their Beats-based Spotify competitor. Everyone is gonna flock to it because instead of a small share of the profit going to a couple hateable millionaire pop-stars, it'll go to a couple billionaire industrialists, and somehow we'll convince ourselves that that's a better deal.
I sort of agree. But really, if you want to compete in the music streaming business, you can't slap a higher price tag on the product and expect people to abandon a cheaper service in favor of yours. Regardless of the millionaires that co-signed TIDAL, I think the product and the execution just didn't offer an alternative that people would jump to. People don't care about music quality, and exclusive tracks/music videos will eventually leak. When it boils down to it, what am I paying an extra $10 for? And how are the artists benefiting?
On your Apple point, people will buy into their streaming service because...well...it's Apple, plain and simple. If the Apple logo wasn't on the Apple Watch, I doubt there would be half as many pre-orders of it.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 24, 2015 12:13:36 GMT -5
I'm totally fine with free spotify. I use it when at work (headphones) or at home (speakers/headphones).
When I'm not at home I don't listen to music on my phone, really. I've still got a small ipod nano that stores what I'm currently checking out as well as podcasts that I tend to listen to. Then on my phone (if I want to use it) I've got my google play account which has my entire music library.
On the off chance that I want an artist that I don't own/have already I can do spotify shuffle play or youtube on my phone.
I had planned on getting spotify premium but I don't use music on my phone as much as others so i've stuck with the free.
Unrelated to that, but has anyone noticed how many news sites are trying to make a big deal about Kanye deleting tweets promoting Tidal? I didn't see it as that big of a deal but for a day or two I saw a ton of "Kanye West hates Tidal now" type of articles.
I honestly can't believe so many people use the free version of Spotify. No ads and mobile access is completely worth the $10 a month.
On paper, the basic (ad-free) version of Tidal is the same price and quality as Spotify Premium, but artists get more in royalties.
I think many people came away with the misconception that Tidal only offered a $20/month service. There was a lack of execution on Tidal's part to clearly inform that a) there is a $10 version available, and b) They will pay artists x%, compared to other streaming services that only pay y%
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 24, 2015 12:17:42 GMT -5
I haven't tried Tidal at all.....do they have all the same artists as Spotify? Or are some notable names missing? Would that be a possible reason stopping people from switching over?
I honestly can't believe so many people use the free version of Spotify. No ads and mobile access is completely worth the $10 a month.
On paper, the basic (ad-free) version of Tidal is the same price and quality as Spotify Premium, but artists get more in royalties.
I think many people came away with the misconception that Tidal only offered a $20/month service. There was a lack of execution on Tidal's part to clearly inform that a) there is a $10 version available, and b) They will pay artists x%, compared to other streaming services that only pay y%
The rollout was a complete marketing failure. First, all those celebrities should have been listed as "investors" instead of "owners" because 1) that's what they are, and 2) that's a much more palatable stance. "We rich artists so believe in this product that we sunk our own money into it to make it work and help give back to the not-yet-successful artists." That would sell.
Second, I agree they should have been more explicit about royalties. I know quite a bit about Spotify's business model, and from what I know from that I assume Tidal couldn't come up with a specific x% they'll be paying, but making clear statements like "at Tidal, the fans and artists will come first, advertisers will be second" would send a message and remind Spotify free users that they don't actually have to listen to an advertisement every third track.
Post by krisplettuce on Apr 24, 2015 12:22:42 GMT -5
Lol bc I really care how much an artist is making off their music? Does that make the music better? No. Good luck tidal. Spootify just partnered with Sony playstation so that's roughly 30mil possible subscribers there that alone is reason enough for me to stick with spotify.
Why switch over to a new service for the same cost and lose all my playlists and what not? Just so I can say hey I'm helping deadmau5 make more money! Good for me!
Lol bc I really care how much an artist is making off their music? Does that make the music better? No. Good luck tidal. Spootify just partnered with Sony playstation so that's roughly 30mil possible subscribers there that alone is reason enough for me to stick with spotify.
Why switch over to a new service for the same cost and lose all my playlists and what not? Just so I can say hey I'm helping deadmau5 make more money! Good for me!
To each their own I guess. I do care about what an artist makes on their music, especially when it's a smaller artist that isnt' making buku bucks like Deadmau5.
If I know for a fact Tidal is providing artists more $ per stream, and that their catalog is comparable to Spotify I would probably switch.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 24, 2015 12:30:34 GMT -5
I like to support the artists I really love. Especially when they are starting out and aren't a household name. I don't feel bad about U2 getting shafted on royalties but the ones who are scraping by tour after tour could use a bit of a boost to make them more comfortable.
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Apr 24, 2015 12:30:51 GMT -5
Also you can import your Spotify playlists to Tidal.
But yeah, if your view is "music is a service that artists should provide for me for free out of the goodness of their hearts" I can see why you wouldn't care about royalty rates and what not. Lol indeed.
I use the free version of Spotify. I buy music still (for the most part, there is some that I download or stream first), I support struggling artist that I love and have music on my phone. The ads on Spotify don't bother me, but I mostly just use that at work or if I am tired of sirius in my car for various reasons.
I like to support the artists I really love. Especially when they are starting out and aren't a household name. I don't feel bad about U2 getting shafted on royalties but the ones who are scraping by tour after tour could use a bit of a boost to make them more comfortable.
I buy music from the artists I love as well. But most people, the VAST majority, love their money more. If there isn't a cheaper or equally priced alternative with a few extra perks latched on, the product is dead on arrival. I think TIDAL has/had potential and Spotify needs viable competitors. But TIDAL's execution was haphazard, and the underlying mission was pretty ambiguous.
If Jay-Z and friends really cared about helping artists get paid for their music, struggling artists with small fanbases would have been at the forefront of TIDAL's roll out. Not to mention the additional monetary value they would see if users supported the service.
I think many people came away with the misconception that Tidal only offered a $20/month service. There was a lack of execution on Tidal's part to clearly inform that a) there is a $10 version available, and b) They will pay artists x%, compared to other streaming services that only pay y%
The rollout was a complete marketing failure. First, all those celebrities should have been listed as "investors" instead of "owners" because 1) that's what they are, and 2) that's a much more palatable stance. "We rich artists so believe in this product that we sunk our own money into it to make it work and help give back to the not-yet-successful artists." That would sell.
Second, I agree they should have been more explicit about royalties. I know quite a bit about Spotify's business model, and from what I know from that I assume Tidal couldn't come up with a specific x% they'll be paying, but making clear statements like "at Tidal, the fans and artists will come first, advertisers will be second" would send a message and remind Spotify free users that they don't actually have to listen to an advertisement every third track.
Definitely agree with this. If they would have come out and said something like "Artists will receive on average twice the payout per stream " it would have gone over much better.
I don't care how much those big stars are making. I care how much the band that tours in a broken down van, barely making it from show to show is making.
At this point, I try and preorder vinyl from upcoming bands as much as I can, plus see them on tour. They absolutely deserve compensation, but it doesn't look like the market has quite found the right solution yet.
Also you can import your Spotify playlists to Tidal.
But yeah, if your view is "music is a service that artists should provide for me for free out of the goodness of their hearts" I can see why you wouldn't care about royalty rates and what not. Lol indeed.
Hey we could all just go back to pirating music...
Also you can import your Spotify playlists to Tidal.
But yeah, if your view is "music is a service that artists should provide for me for free out of the goodness of their hearts" I can see why you wouldn't care about royalty rates and what not. Lol indeed.
Hey we could all just go back to pirating music...
Trust me when I tell you jay z and kanye have no concern about the little guys in music. Not unless they can make a buck off em.
Also you can import your Spotify playlists to Tidal.
But yeah, if your view is "music is a service that artists should provide for me for free out of the goodness of their hearts" I can see why you wouldn't care about royalty rates and what not. Lol indeed.
Hey we could all just go back to pirating music...
If Jay-Z and friends really cared about helping artists get paid for their music, struggling artists with small fanbases would have been at the forefront of TIDAL's roll out. Not to mention the additional monetary value they would see if users supported the service.
I mean, I definitely understand the logic of their strategy. Dazzle people with star power, get their attention, get them to buy in. Dre slapped his name on subpar headphones and got a shitload of people to buy them. Jay-Z bought 1% of the Nets and was a marketing dream for the new Barclays. I think that's exactly what they were trying to repeat, they just went too far overboard.
If Jay-Z and friends really cared about helping artists get paid for their music, struggling artists with small fanbases would have been at the forefront of TIDAL's roll out. Not to mention the additional monetary value they would see if users supported the service.
Yeah because nothing will get people to flock to the newest and coolest music streaming service like the guys playing to empty tents at noon at your local festival. Good business plan.