6 ms·

Jay Z Reveals Plans for Tidal, a Streaming Music Service

28 points by ValG 12y ago

sehr 12y ago
The plan was unveiled on Monday at a brief but highly choreographed news conference in Manhattan, where Jay Z stood alongside more than a dozen musicians identified as Tidal’s owners. They included Rihanna, Kanye West, Madonna, Nicki Minaj, Jack White, Alicia Keys, the country singer Jason Aldean, the French dance duo Daft Punk (in signature robot costumes), members of Arcade Fire, and Beyoncé, Jay Z’s wife. That's a lot of cooks!
- ValG 12y ago
  I think what's interesting is that this in intended to give artists buy-in to the streaming service. If they can get enough exclusive material and artists, I could see it take off. A few months ago I remember reading a post by an artist that said this is the only way for artists to get their fair share, but no one was big enough to tackle it, maybe Jay Z is the guy to do it?
- anonbanker 12y ago
  you spelled "kook" wrong, independant of the quality of the broth.
DigitalSea 12y ago
I don't know if the world is ready for this kind of thing. As an audiophile I think it is great that we're going to get access to a trove of lossless music, but I think the majority who is happy listening to music through their iPhone earphones and tinny speakers in their smartphones won't care (especially not enough to pay double the cost of a Spotify subscription). Then there is the kind of internet speed required to stream lossless music. For those who have FLAC's in their music collection know that an album is hundreds of megabytes compared to a V0 rip which is only usually around the 75 to 100mb mark (depending on length and tracks). Now imagine streaming a track that is upwards of 20mb+? Here in Australia we have poor internet, we're ranked pretty low. I already struggle to stream 320kbps from Spotify Premium on my connection. The story is the same in New Zealand and other parts of the world. Then you have the bandwidth limitation, a lossless streaming platform would chew through potentially gigabytes of data (in Australia we still have bandwidth caps and we get speed limited or charged extra for going over them). Then there is the subject of modern music production. Sad to say it, but most modern music is so overproduced and compressed during the mixing stage that it doesn't matter if you're listening to a 128kbps MP3 or lossless, it won't sound any better. Most music is destroyed in the studio before it is even released, therefore not worthy of listening to in any high bitrate format. If you want to debate this, I implore you to read up on "the loudness wars" in which it has been pretty documented that music is getting louder and the louder it gets, the lower the quality is (as the dynamics and peaks are stripped out). I think Tidal is great, but I am very sceptical that it will address the issues people currently have with Spotify, more specifically how it pays out royalties. I do think there is a serious lack of strong music platforms that encourage discovery. As great as Spotify is, it doesn't let me fluidly discover new music. Rather I find myself clicking through related artists which feels counter-intuitive considering how much music and music data there is out there. Tidal very much comes across to me as a platform built by a rich music industry hotshot, backed by equally big and established artists who have sold millions. I would love to see the idea of a VIP backstage feature incorporated into a platform like this. You can pay a monthly subscription fee to subscribe to an artist and in return get access to a members only area with exclusive early release music, discount merchandise, pre-release concert tickets, a chat feature/Q&A and other member only private features. I think something like that could work really well for large groups like One Direction and artists like Justin Bieber especially. Seems like a logic additional revenue stream for large and small artists alike. It is a really nice idea, coupled with the exclusives component as well, but I just don't think the majority cares enough about music quality as a select few do. Most people cannot probably even hear the difference between lossless and a 320 MP3 (especially considering they're listening on prosumer equipment like iPhones and MacBooks). I would definitely use this if it had some classic artists on here, 60's/70's rock and blues that wasn't overproduced and would sound great lossless (like Led Zeppelin's earlier material or The Beatles especially). Metallica's Death Magnetic album - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Criticism_regarding_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Criticism_regard... is definitely not going to sound any better if it finds its way onto the Tidal platform, that is for sure.
- thezilch 12y ago
  Even if FLAC was required for "high-fidelity" -- it's not -- a 20mb track and assuming the track is at a super short length of 60 seconds is going at ~341kbps. YouTube is already pumping bits faster than that at 360p [0], so that really doesn't seem like a hard part of the equation, and surely the market for this is not looking to capture an audience smaller than YouTube's. [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171
  - DigitalSea 12y ago
    I was just using FLAC as a comparison for lossless considering when someone thinks of lossless audio they will mostly think of FLAC. Of course it goes deeper than that. I think the hard part of the equation is still definitely dealing with bandwidth and speed limitations though. I have issues streaming Youtube video even more so than I do HQ Spotify tracks (and it is a problem more common in Australia particularly than most think). Optimisations can only go so far before you encounter hard limitations software cannot work around without a reduction in quality. Considering the platform will offer 320 and lossless, I guess they're not limiting themselves to some small niche of the market. Most people will happily pay the same price for Spotify like quality and a possibly larger catalogue on Tidal, but I don't think the lossless aspect is going to be as big as Jay Z thinks. It's a marketing gimick more than it is a selling point for the general audio consumer.
    - 0x0 12y ago
      1k/2k/4k video streaming seem to be coming along alright in many markets so I don't think lossless audio streaming is over the top. Totally understand the sucky situation in Australia though. Maybe an aussie cdn cache could help in that particular market?
- mercer 12y ago
  It might work in the same way that selling overpriced (but, from what I hear, still decent) Beats headphones has worked out. It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of people will prefer Tidal because it has 'lossless music' and sounds 'totally better'. Whether it actually matters most of the time is not that important, in the same way that discussions about Beats headphone's price/quality are not so interesting to most people who buy these things.
deeviant 12y ago
“This is a platform that’s owned by artists,” - Jay Z I think he meant, "This is a platform owned by established, rich, and ageing artists, whose resolve to assist up-and-comers should rightfully be questioned." Not to say this can be any worse then something like Spotify, which already trounces over the independents, but I hardly think this is a likely group to bring democracy and creativity back to the musical scene.
- rodgerd 12y ago
  > I think he meant, "This is a platform owned by established, rich, and ageing artists, whose resolve to assist up-and-comers should rightfully be questioned." An actual artist-owned platform (a co-operative model where artists = shareholders) would actually be pretty awesome.
  - alexophile 12y ago
    > But one executive involved in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deals were private, said that participating artists were being granted shares in exchange for their good-faith efforts to supply exclusive content I think the problem with an artist-owned platform is that I actually want the platform to be agnostic in terms of what is actually surfaced. When I open Rdio, I can see what's popular amongst everyone, my network, or just me. I don't want that to be affected by the owners also being the product. What really concerns me is the double-talk. > “I just want to be an alternative,” Jay Z said. “They don’t have to lose for me to win.” But the strategy is clearly going to be largely based on exclusive content. This doesn't mean Rdio and spotify lose, it means the fans lose because they have to spend the time and energy they would normally put into enjoying music towards weighing the different streaming options. I guess Jay said it best: "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man." That's the artist that owns this "artist-owned" platform.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  When artists make it big, don't they usually start their own labels anyways? We also have rich artists very active in the music industry, providing capital and such...I mean, it is the industry they known and succeeded in! This is sort of like a programmer who made it big in an IPO becoming a venture capitalist for software tech companies: I'm sure that has happened before.
guelo 12y ago
They might have a chance if these big name artists, and their record companies, agree to pull their music from all the other services.
DIVx0 12y ago
I'd pay $20/month or more for a service that: * had high quality streams * had gigantic library * _biggest of all_ cracked the 'discovery' nut. I listen to music all day, I don't like to listen to the same tracks more than a few times so I have a hard time keeping my queue full. I'm a Spotify subscriber so I'll find an artist I think is interesting, play their whole discography and then start digging into 'related artists' to find new stuff. This is a bit of a drag and is hit or miss. I don't necessarily want to find related music, but music that I might like. Spotify's radio feature is just about useless. Voting one way or the other will skew it to play pretty much _only_ the thumbs up'ed artist or avoid a genre entirely if you thumbs down a particular track. I still think there is a killer music service waiting to be born. I don't think Tidal will be it.
- freehunter 12y ago
  I like Spotify's discovery. I subscribe to a lot of playlists that are constantly updated where I can get a lot of new artists from. Never used the radio, I just go to their playlists and find Americana or Alternative or whatever I'm looking for.
  - DIVx0 12y ago
    I've tried many of their playlists. I've found some that are very good and was thrilled to find them, however the content was easy to exhaust and I ended up picking apart those playlists for new artists. Back to square 1 if you will. I know it sounds like whining, but I really think the 'killer app' of music will be something that can effortlessly pick out the unknown gems from the ocean of new music. I'm continually surprised about the quality of new music but I don't like to have to dig around for it my self.
    - encoderer 12y ago
      I can't help but feel that you're doing it wrong? Spotify playlists are beautiful because you subscribe to it. The playlists are updated and curated continuously. This is true of the Spotify-published playlists and those of musicians, celebrities, etc.
freehunter 12y ago
Here's the problem: I don't want another music service. I want all my favorite artists on one music service. There is literally no reason for them to not be other than various forms of greed. Garth Brooks created his own music streaming service because the people behind the album don't get enough attention. Taylor Swift doesn't put her music on Spotify because she can make more money on iTunes. Jay Z creates a streaming service to put out higher quality music files at a higher price. The result? I don't listen to their music even though I really want to (I know Jay Z is still on Spotify). Hey Taylor, this isn't 2005, where I would buy a bunch of MP3s from anywhere and put them on my iPod. I don't store music locally, hardly anyone does. Apple doesn't even make a large-disk iPod anymore. Likewise, how many people are going to be willing to subscribe to multiple music sources like they do Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon? You have a problem with Spotify? Work with them. Let's ask Sony how they fared coming up with Crackle instead of using Netflix.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- 0x0 12y ago
  Maybe the time has come for someone to write a "pidgin for music streaming services", a wrapper client with playlists and search that jumps between all your subscribed services depending on track availability :P
- nothrabannosir 12y ago
  Competition = good, one music service to rule them all = bad. Good on Tailor Swift for keeping Spotify on their toes. Good on you for choosing Spotify and not Tidal. Let a thousand musical flowers bloom, and may they forever compete for attention of the bees, giving us more colors and extravagance as time progresses. Please keep making alternative music services and please keep giving us more choice, better quality and lower prices.
lqdc13 12y ago
Why not just let people download the songs? I would hate to stream FLACs... Or stream anything for that matter. Then again, Bandcamp already does it.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  Yeah, I'd rather download stuff too, but we're not the average user. I think an ideal platform does both.
ElectricFeel 12y ago
HE. Jay Hova!
ElectricFeel 12y ago
HE. Jay Hova!
some1else 12y ago
“The challenge is to get everyone to respect music again, to recognize its value,” said Jay Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter. “Water is free. Music is $6 but no one wants to pay for music. You should drink free water from the tap — it’s a beautiful thing. And if you want to hear the most beautiful song, then support the artist.” --- Water is metered here in Slovenia, more like on-demand streaming.
- bobbles 12y ago
  This metaphor is all over the place. Water sure as shit isnt free, taxpayer support yes, free no. Should we not support all the people behind getting the water to your end of the pipe?
adamnemecek 12y ago
Not to sound like a naysayer but this is going to tank so hard it's not even funny.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anonbanker 12y ago
I'll avoid the obligatory XKCD (927), but doesn't this move, and all other fractionalizing of the music industry, merely serve to make Piracy the most appealing option? not that I mind; I haven't paid for music since 2007.

28 points by ValG 12y ago

sehr 12y ago

The plan was unveiled on Monday at a brief but highly choreographed news conference in Manhattan, where Jay Z stood alongside more than a dozen musicians identified as Tidal’s owners. They included Rihanna, Kanye West, Madonna, Nicki Minaj, Jack White, Alicia Keys, the country singer Jason Aldean, the French dance duo Daft Punk (in signature robot costumes), members of Arcade Fire, and Beyoncé, Jay Z’s wife. That's a lot of cooks!

ValG 12y ago
I think what's interesting is that this in intended to give artists buy-in to the streaming service. If they can get enough exclusive material and artists, I could see it take off. A few months ago I remember reading a post by an artist that said this is the only way for artists to get their fair share, but no one was big enough to tackle it, maybe Jay Z is the guy to do it?
anonbanker 12y ago
you spelled "kook" wrong, independant of the quality of the broth.

DigitalSea 12y ago

I don't know if the world is ready for this kind of thing. As an audiophile I think it is great that we're going to get access to a trove of lossless music, but I think the majority who is happy listening to music through their iPhone earphones and tinny speakers in their smartphones won't care (especially not enough to pay double the cost of a Spotify subscription). Then there is the kind of internet speed required to stream lossless music. For those who have FLAC's in their music collection know that an album is hundreds of megabytes compared to a V0 rip which is only usually around the 75 to 100mb mark (depending on length and tracks). Now imagine streaming a track that is upwards of 20mb+? Here in Australia we have poor internet, we're ranked pretty low. I already struggle to stream 320kbps from Spotify Premium on my connection. The story is the same in New Zealand and other parts of the world. Then you have the bandwidth limitation, a lossless streaming platform would chew through potentially gigabytes of data (in Australia we still have bandwidth caps and we get speed limited or charged extra for going over them). Then there is the subject of modern music production. Sad to say it, but most modern music is so overproduced and compressed during the mixing stage that it doesn't matter if you're listening to a 128kbps MP3 or lossless, it won't sound any better. Most music is destroyed in the studio before it is even released, therefore not worthy of listening to in any high bitrate format. If you want to debate this, I implore you to read up on "the loudness wars" in which it has been pretty documented that music is getting louder and the louder it gets, the lower the quality is (as the dynamics and peaks are stripped out). I think Tidal is great, but I am very sceptical that it will address the issues people currently have with Spotify, more specifically how it pays out royalties. I do think there is a serious lack of strong music platforms that encourage discovery. As great as Spotify is, it doesn't let me fluidly discover new music. Rather I find myself clicking through related artists which feels counter-intuitive considering how much music and music data there is out there. Tidal very much comes across to me as a platform built by a rich music industry hotshot, backed by equally big and established artists who have sold millions. I would love to see the idea of a VIP backstage feature incorporated into a platform like this. You can pay a monthly subscription fee to subscribe to an artist and in return get access to a members only area with exclusive early release music, discount merchandise, pre-release concert tickets, a chat feature/Q&A and other member only private features. I think something like that could work really well for large groups like One Direction and artists like Justin Bieber especially. Seems like a logic additional revenue stream for large and small artists alike. It is a really nice idea, coupled with the exclusives component as well, but I just don't think the majority cares enough about music quality as a select few do. Most people cannot probably even hear the difference between lossless and a 320 MP3 (especially considering they're listening on prosumer equipment like iPhones and MacBooks). I would definitely use this if it had some classic artists on here, 60's/70's rock and blues that wasn't overproduced and would sound great lossless (like Led Zeppelin's earlier material or The Beatles especially). Metallica's Death Magnetic album - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Criticism_regarding_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Magnetic#Criticism_regard... is definitely not going to sound any better if it finds its way onto the Tidal platform, that is for sure.

thezilch 12y ago
Even if FLAC was required for "high-fidelity" -- it's not -- a 20mb track and assuming the track is at a super short length of 60 seconds is going at ~341kbps. YouTube is already pumping bits faster than that at 360p [0], so that really doesn't seem like a hard part of the equation, and surely the market for this is not looking to capture an audience smaller than YouTube's. [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171
- DigitalSea 12y ago
  I was just using FLAC as a comparison for lossless considering when someone thinks of lossless audio they will mostly think of FLAC. Of course it goes deeper than that. I think the hard part of the equation is still definitely dealing with bandwidth and speed limitations though. I have issues streaming Youtube video even more so than I do HQ Spotify tracks (and it is a problem more common in Australia particularly than most think). Optimisations can only go so far before you encounter hard limitations software cannot work around without a reduction in quality. Considering the platform will offer 320 and lossless, I guess they're not limiting themselves to some small niche of the market. Most people will happily pay the same price for Spotify like quality and a possibly larger catalogue on Tidal, but I don't think the lossless aspect is going to be as big as Jay Z thinks. It's a marketing gimick more than it is a selling point for the general audio consumer.
  - 0x0 12y ago
    1k/2k/4k video streaming seem to be coming along alright in many markets so I don't think lossless audio streaming is over the top. Totally understand the sucky situation in Australia though. Maybe an aussie cdn cache could help in that particular market?
mercer 12y ago
It might work in the same way that selling overpriced (but, from what I hear, still decent) Beats headphones has worked out. It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of people will prefer Tidal because it has 'lossless music' and sounds 'totally better'. Whether it actually matters most of the time is not that important, in the same way that discussions about Beats headphone's price/quality are not so interesting to most people who buy these things.

deeviant 12y ago

“This is a platform that’s owned by artists,” - Jay Z I think he meant, "This is a platform owned by established, rich, and ageing artists, whose resolve to assist up-and-comers should rightfully be questioned." Not to say this can be any worse then something like Spotify, which already trounces over the independents, but I hardly think this is a likely group to bring democracy and creativity back to the musical scene.

rodgerd 12y ago
> I think he meant, "This is a platform owned by established, rich, and ageing artists, whose resolve to assist up-and-comers should rightfully be questioned." An actual artist-owned platform (a co-operative model where artists = shareholders) would actually be pretty awesome.
- alexophile 12y ago
  > But one executive involved in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deals were private, said that participating artists were being granted shares in exchange for their good-faith efforts to supply exclusive content I think the problem with an artist-owned platform is that I actually want the platform to be agnostic in terms of what is actually surfaced. When I open Rdio, I can see what's popular amongst everyone, my network, or just me. I don't want that to be affected by the owners also being the product. What really concerns me is the double-talk. > “I just want to be an alternative,” Jay Z said. “They don’t have to lose for me to win.” But the strategy is clearly going to be largely based on exclusive content. This doesn't mean Rdio and spotify lose, it means the fans lose because they have to spend the time and energy they would normally put into enjoying music towards weighing the different streaming options. I guess Jay said it best: "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man." That's the artist that owns this "artist-owned" platform.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
When artists make it big, don't they usually start their own labels anyways? We also have rich artists very active in the music industry, providing capital and such...I mean, it is the industry they known and succeeded in! This is sort of like a programmer who made it big in an IPO becoming a venture capitalist for software tech companies: I'm sure that has happened before.

guelo 12y ago

They might have a chance if these big name artists, and their record companies, agree to pull their music from all the other services.

DIVx0 12y ago

I'd pay $20/month or more for a service that: * had high quality streams * had gigantic library * _biggest of all_ cracked the 'discovery' nut. I listen to music all day, I don't like to listen to the same tracks more than a few times so I have a hard time keeping my queue full. I'm a Spotify subscriber so I'll find an artist I think is interesting, play their whole discography and then start digging into 'related artists' to find new stuff. This is a bit of a drag and is hit or miss. I don't necessarily want to find related music, but music that I might like. Spotify's radio feature is just about useless. Voting one way or the other will skew it to play pretty much _only_ the thumbs up'ed artist or avoid a genre entirely if you thumbs down a particular track. I still think there is a killer music service waiting to be born. I don't think Tidal will be it.

freehunter 12y ago
I like Spotify's discovery. I subscribe to a lot of playlists that are constantly updated where I can get a lot of new artists from. Never used the radio, I just go to their playlists and find Americana or Alternative or whatever I'm looking for.
- DIVx0 12y ago
  I've tried many of their playlists. I've found some that are very good and was thrilled to find them, however the content was easy to exhaust and I ended up picking apart those playlists for new artists. Back to square 1 if you will. I know it sounds like whining, but I really think the 'killer app' of music will be something that can effortlessly pick out the unknown gems from the ocean of new music. I'm continually surprised about the quality of new music but I don't like to have to dig around for it my self.
  - encoderer 12y ago
    I can't help but feel that you're doing it wrong? Spotify playlists are beautiful because you subscribe to it. The playlists are updated and curated continuously. This is true of the Spotify-published playlists and those of musicians, celebrities, etc.

freehunter 12y ago

Here's the problem: I don't want another music service. I want all my favorite artists on one music service. There is literally no reason for them to not be other than various forms of greed. Garth Brooks created his own music streaming service because the people behind the album don't get enough attention. Taylor Swift doesn't put her music on Spotify because she can make more money on iTunes. Jay Z creates a streaming service to put out higher quality music files at a higher price. The result? I don't listen to their music even though I really want to (I know Jay Z is still on Spotify). Hey Taylor, this isn't 2005, where I would buy a bunch of MP3s from anywhere and put them on my iPod. I don't store music locally, hardly anyone does. Apple doesn't even make a large-disk iPod anymore. Likewise, how many people are going to be willing to subscribe to multiple music sources like they do Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon? You have a problem with Spotify? Work with them. Let's ask Sony how they fared coming up with Crackle instead of using Netflix.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
0x0 12y ago
Maybe the time has come for someone to write a "pidgin for music streaming services", a wrapper client with playlists and search that jumps between all your subscribed services depending on track availability :P
nothrabannosir 12y ago
Competition = good, one music service to rule them all = bad. Good on Tailor Swift for keeping Spotify on their toes. Good on you for choosing Spotify and not Tidal. Let a thousand musical flowers bloom, and may they forever compete for attention of the bees, giving us more colors and extravagance as time progresses. Please keep making alternative music services and please keep giving us more choice, better quality and lower prices.

lqdc13 12y ago

Why not just let people download the songs? I would hate to stream FLACs... Or stream anything for that matter. Then again, Bandcamp already does it.

copsarebastards 12y ago
Yeah, I'd rather download stuff too, but we're not the average user. I think an ideal platform does both.

ElectricFeel 12y ago

HE. Jay Hova!

ElectricFeel 12y ago

HE. Jay Hova!

some1else 12y ago

“The challenge is to get everyone to respect music again, to recognize its value,” said Jay Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter. “Water is free. Music is $6 but no one wants to pay for music. You should drink free water from the tap — it’s a beautiful thing. And if you want to hear the most beautiful song, then support the artist.” --- Water is metered here in Slovenia, more like on-demand streaming.

bobbles 12y ago
This metaphor is all over the place. Water sure as shit isnt free, taxpayer support yes, free no. Should we not support all the people behind getting the water to your end of the pipe?

adamnemecek 12y ago

Not to sound like a naysayer but this is going to tank so hard it's not even funny.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

anonbanker 12y ago

I'll avoid the obligatory XKCD (927), but doesn't this move, and all other fractionalizing of the music industry, merely serve to make Piracy the most appealing option? not that I mind; I haven't paid for music since 2007.