Jay-Z launches new music streaming service

floggg

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, they are produced products, they sit down in meetings going over the look they will have, what's in fashion at the moment. How best to extract money from people by finding the most lucrative niche and pandering to the most popular stereotypes.

I don't enjoy their music and I don't listen to any of it. I can't stand music radio.

What annoys me about them is they like to call themselves artists when they are in fact engineered products. They have nothing of value to say about anything, they pander to the lowest common denominator to sell as much as possible.

Meh. I don't listen to the radio either but I'm not arrogant enough to think just because I don't enjoy something that others won't find creative merit in it.

Or because it appeals to a wide audience it is therefore lesser than something more niche.

For all people like to complain about it being generic crap anybody could produce, few actually do produce it.

So even if your Rihannas don't wrote their own songs or they rely on teams, I know that even with all the song writers and teams in the world nobody's going to pay to hear me sing or watch my twerk so whatever they make from what they do fair play to them.

riclad

Good news ,since on spotify,
etc most of the money goes to record companys,
not singers or songwriters ,creative people who make music.
AS he said at the launch interview most musicians get ripped off by bad contracts , by record companys,agents etc

This service will not be run by the old record companys.
AT least most of the money will go to people who make music ,
or write the songs .
IT,s funny that this service is set up after apple paid billions for beats music .

TheGoldenAges

I'll stick with Spotify.

ScumLord

floggg wrote: »

Meh. I don't listen to the radio either but I'm not arrogant enough to think just because I don't enjoy something that others won't find creative merit in it.

Or because it appeals to a wide audience it is therefore lesser than something more niche.

It's creative in the same way the team designing the new iPhone is creative. It's based on sales statistic, surveys of target market and generally what's popular at the time. And the problem is anyone that wants to break in has to follow the set standards or the consumers won't bother with them.

For all people like to complain about it being generic crap anybody could produce, few actually do produce it.

The music scene is saturated, anyone can get into making music these days for very little money. There is a never ending list of new music all targeting the same markets. You don't see heavy metal bands doing dance albums, because their fans wouldn't allow them too and they won't do anything that won't lead to sales. That's not art for art's sake, it's just profiteering.

Egginacup

Boom_Bap wrote: »

From an artist perspective, Spotify is grand for promoting music, but not for generating revenue.

Arguably the biggest song of last year was Happy by Pharrell, with over 40 million streams on Spotify.
Pharrell got about $2000 for this.

Picture an artist like BK-One who I happen to have met and been in touch with a few times. Nobody probably knows his name yet he is on Spotify and has music streaming. He got a cheque from them that he couldn't even cash because it wasn't even a full cent.

So a new streaming service that pays the artist better is what Tidal is.

I don't really know how it works but do the artists get a cheque when their song is played on the radio? Does each radio station around the world keep a log book of each time they played a song by a certain artist and then at the end of the year tally it all up and fire off a cheque to whoever?

Boom_Bap

Egginacup wrote: »

I don't really know how it works but do the artists get a cheque when their song is played on the radio? Does each radio station around the world keep a log book of each time they played a song by a certain artist and then at the end of the year tally it all up and fire off a cheque to whoever?

Yes, pretty much yes. They wouldn't get a check after each play, but a cumulative cheque after X amount of time.

As for touring, the new deals that are signed on major labels, 360 deals, they include a cut on the merch. It previously was not like that, so major label artists are not getting as much from touring anymore.

TheDoc

Boom_Bap wrote: »

From an artist perspective, Spotify is grand for promoting music, but not for generating revenue.

Arguably the biggest song of last year was Happy by Pharrell, with over 40 million streams on Spotify.
Pharrell got about $2000 for this.

Picture an artist like BK-One who I happen to have met and been in touch with a few times. Nobody probably knows his name yet he is on Spotify and has music streaming. He got a cheque from them that he couldn't even cash because it wasn't even a full cent.

So a new streaming service that pays the artist better is what Tidal is.

A frequent arguement or alternative view to streaming that simply makes no sense.

Streaming is essentially free and instant advertising for artists. They arn't "paying" spotify a fee to host their music. Spotify and other services are more then happy to add them to the library.

There are various levels of artists and musicians out there, from the mega rich to the ones making ends meat trying to catch a break. But if you are planning your finances as a musican around streaming revenue, your are receiving horrendous advice, or none at all.

Platforms like spotify provide a low barrier to entry for people to explore and listen to your music, the hope being that person becomes a fan and maybe goes to one of your gigs, or grabs an album or something along those lines.

Streaming platforms are advertising, and provide supplimentary revenue, they never were intended, nor never become, replacements as your main revenue stream.

Bipolar Joe

Not using Bandcamp in 2015 means you're actively trying to fail.

Boom_Bap

I'm in complete agreement TheDoc, it's a great 'free' advertising platform for the artist. This is the crux of the online streaming debate. Many pros and many cons for artists. In fairness to alot of artists, they dont really know where thier position is.
A friend of mine has music on Spotify, he thinks its grand that people can hear his stuff. But he thinks its a kick in the teeth when the payment arrives, a bit of an insult really.

Compared to the payment from the little radio play he gets, it's pittance.

That is why this new service is being introduced by artists for artists....to reduce the slap in the face.

The era of how artists music is relayed to the audience has changed, so it's time for the payment side to catch up.

Here is an excellent breakdown of earnings -> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/04/03/streamingstatements

floggg

TheDoc wrote: »

A frequent arguement or alternative view to streaming that simply makes no sense.

Streaming is essentially free and instant advertising for artists. They arn't "paying" spotify a fee to host their music. Spotify and other services are more then happy to add them to the library.

There are various levels of artists and musicians out there, from the mega rich to the ones making ends meat trying to catch a break. But if you are planning your finances as a musican around streaming revenue, your are receiving horrendous advice, or none at all.

Platforms like spotify provide a low barrier to entry for people to explore and listen to your music, the hope being that person becomes a fan and maybe goes to one of your gigs, or grabs an album or something along those lines.

Streaming platforms are advertising, and provide supplimentary revenue, they never were intended, nor never become, replacements as your main revenue stream.

I think you are also mischaracterising the streaming model.

Your description of streaming as a form of advertising would be more appropriate to radio - which exposes audiences to new music without giving them any form of ownership of control of it. But even radio has always had an obligation to compensate the artists its business model is based on.


Streaming services like spitify however gives your control and unlimited access to the music concerned (subject to whatever advertising and playback limits might apply).

You can take your music with you anywhere, playing artists albums of your choosing at will. You are therefore never obligated to buy the music if you want to listen to it on your own terms.


Therefore it's hard to see it as advertising - it isn't encouraging you to buy music, it's removing the requirement to do so in the first place.

wandatowell

Jay-Z can get f*cked.

Apologies for my complete lack of contribution.

Effects

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Picture an artist like BK-One who I happen to have met and been in touch with a few times. Nobody probably knows his name yet he is on Spotify and has music streaming. He got a cheque from them that he couldn't even cash because it wasn't even a full cent.

That's not true. They simply don't issue cheques for less than $0.01. Either you or your contact is lying.

Boom_Bap

Effects wrote: »

That's not true. They simply don't issue cheques for less than $0.01. Either you or your contact is lying.

Sorry, just looked it up, he has an image on FB of the cheque, it was 9 cents.

https://www.facebook.com/BKlovesyou/photos/pb.48177013067.-2207520000.1427820993./10151583218758068/?type=1&theater

TheDoc

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm in complete agreement TheDoc, it's a great 'free' advertising platform for the artist. This is the crux of the online streaming debate. Many pros and many cons for artists. In fairness to alot of artists, they dont really know where thier position is.
A friend of mine has music on Spotify, he thinks its grand that people can hear his stuff. But he thinks its a kick in the teeth when the payment arrives, a bit of an insult really.

Compared to the payment from the little radio play he gets, it's pittance.

That is why this new service is being introduced by artists for artists....to reduce the slap in the face.

The era of how artists music is relayed to the audience has changed, so it's time for the payment side to catch up.

Here is an excellent breakdown of earnings -> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/04/03/streamingstatements

But surely the earnings of artists is dictated by that of the market, and therefore the consumer. They can't "maintain" they current financial income, or for some artists try achieve a grand level of income, by simply ignoring market forces and raising barriers or employing methods of protection, to protect their wealth and earnings.

I've no real issue with them trying it, and I've no issue with musicians who earn millions. They have a fanbase who choose to pay their ticket prices and album prices, so more power to them.

But there is an ever changing market and the music industry is changing and has been for years. And instead of being innovative and open minded, they have been closed minded and archaic in protecting their profits.

Music listeners are becoming ever more diversified, and that means more consumers are looking for platforms and methods of delivery that meet that need. This morning on the drive in my current playlist, I had five different artists, five different songs, that I played.

Traditionally, I'd have to buy five albums for those songs, costing me €100. so realisticly, I probably never would have made the purchase, and never heard the people involved outside of the radio ( as it happens these tracks wouldn't be on radio anyway).

If I was lucky, they would have a single out(obscure tracks so probably wouldn't have been) so I would have bought all five for €15.

Spotify is meeting my demands. I like various genres, different artists, and every so often like having a browse and just a listen to random recommendations.

Not so long ago, I would have downloaded all my music. all of it, illegally. The last album I bought was in like 2003.

Spotify has provided a platform that actually surpases the accessibility and way I go about my music, actually surpassing what I used to do. So I happily pay a premium sub, for the ease of having everything cross platform, and the UI they provide along with the catalogue.

That Spotify is not paying out big money to artists, is the fault of those artists reps or themselves. Most like again it was not taken as something that would be of significance, just like Napster wasn't a big deal and all the other balls that the music industry has dropped over the last 20 years.

As the barriers to entry have been broken down for musicians, and more people across the globe have access to global audiences and low cost delivery platforms, I wouldn't be suprised to see the wealth that is centred around the elite diminish as the years roll on. Not every musician can earn millions, as one rises another falls away. But as the digital age has pretty much turned the whole thing on it's head, it's probable the centralisation of wealth around profitable acts and musicians will start to disapate.

TheDoc

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Sorry, just looked it up, he has an image on FB of the cheque, it was 9 cents.

https://www.facebook.com/BKlovesyou/photos/pb.48177013067.-2207520000.1427820993./10151583218758068/?type=1&theater

I'd be interested to know what sort of remuneration or entitlement he feels he should get.

His most popular track has circa 30k listens. Unknown how long that track has been available for, but from his bio it appears its from an album released six years ago.

In contrast, Nova Amor's cover for Welcome to The Jungle ( the cover on the new lynx ad) has over 300k listens in sixty days. Who appears from his bio only released his first record( and through unconventional means) a year ago.

I'm not belittling or commenting on the quality of this BK-One, but from a quick glance it appears maybe he/she/them are maybe a somewhat niche act, or have a unique sound.

I don't know details of this musician, but 30k is pretty low. But that is still potentially a few thousand people who listened to that track, and even a few hundred becoming fans will provide revenue in other methods to the act, that simply never would have been there before. It doesn't appear to be someone I'd hear on the radio or are they?

I suppose it demonstrates my point exactly. In a few seconds after you post I was on spotify, found this band/person, had a quick flick through some tracks. Now I might not ever listen to them again, or maybe I will. But it was exposure to the act in a few seconds, a band I'd never contemplate every listening to, and probably would never heard of, if it wasn't for a platform like Spotify.

But as a band I've never heard of and looks to have very low numbers, what sort of expectations does that band have on financials, what do they think they should be earning from Spotify?

dublinman1990

I have never heard of this service called Tidal but when I heard about it and it's price; 20 pound a month??? I would say forget about it, it is too expensive for me so it's not worth it.

I have Xbox Music to keep me happy for my music needs. I do pay for downloads on it because I get limitless downloads on the service for 10 quid a month. I get both albums or singles off that are not regularly played on the radio. Examples of that would be film or video game scores combined with various singles or remixes.

I am able to stream my collection onto a Xbox console as well so that feature is great If I do get a XBox One or 360.

Tidal does sound like a lot of money that would deem itself to fail without the nitty gritty details including the pricing of downloads, the maximum amount of downloads for a subscribed customer, the quality of the downloads for the service, the total amount of songs in the catalogue to stream on the service and other features like a radio feature & the ability to play music videos on an ad free basis.

If it's not going to consider those things to make it survive; it may hit a tidalwave before it goes anywhere.

Notorious97

Il be sticking with Spotify purely because it just launched on ps4.

Tidal seems very expensive for the music I actually have bought over the past years anyway, so even if Jay leaves Spotify I've got all his albums anyway so no need to give him a further 20 quid!

ALiasEX

Boom_Bap wrote: »

From an artist perspective, Spotify is grand for promoting music, but not for generating revenue.

Arguably the biggest song of last year was Happy by Pharrell, with over 40 million streams on Spotify.
Pharrell got about $2000 for this.

Picture an artist like BK-One who I happen to have met and been in touch with a few times. Nobody probably knows his name yet he is on Spotify and has music streaming. He got a cheque from them that he couldn't even cash because it wasn't even a full cent.

So a new streaming service that pays the artist better is what Tidal is.

Meanwhile


'As a result, Spotify now allows Jordan to fulfill his dream of being an artist who can focus on creating new music, instead of doing jobs on the side. '

https://torrentfreak.com/artists-think-instead-spewing-spotify-hate-140222/

'So why are all these artists complaining about the “miserable” compensation they receive from Spotify? According to Jordan, this is in part their own fault, as many artists have signed away most (or all) of their streaming royalties to their record label or distributor.'

'“I can tell you that Spotify has made me about 30% more than iTunes, Pandora, Amazon, Xbox Music, Google Play, eMusic, Rhapsody, Rdio, Deezer, MediaNet, Simky, Nokia, and MySpace Music combined in that period. Even if you tack on my checks from ASCAP to that long list, Spotify is still ahead,” he says.'

Boom_Bap

TheDoc wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what sort of remuneration or entitlement he feels he should get.

His most popular track has circa 30k listens. Unknown how long that track has been available for, but from his bio it appears its from an album released six years ago.

In contrast, Nova Amor's cover for Welcome to The Jungle ( the cover on the new lynx ad) has over 300k listens in sixty days. Who appears from his bio only released his first record( and through unconventional means) a year ago.

I'm not belittling or commenting on the quality of this BK-One, but from a quick glance it appears maybe he/she/them are maybe a somewhat niche act, or have a unique sound.

I don't know details of this musician, but 30k is pretty low. But that is still potentially a few thousand people who listened to that track, and even a few hundred becoming fans will provide revenue in other methods to the act, that simply never would have been there before. It doesn't appear to be someone I'd hear on the radio or are they?

I suppose it demonstrates my point exactly. In a few seconds after you post I was on spotify, found this band/person, had a quick flick through some tracks. Now I might not ever listen to them again, or maybe I will. But it was exposure to the act in a few seconds, a band I'd never contemplate every listening to, and probably would never heard of, if it wasn't for a platform like Spotify.

But as a band I've never heard of and looks to have very low numbers, what sort of expectations does that band have on financials, what do they think they should be earning from Spotify?

I'm in total agreement with everything you are saying. BK-One is an extremely niche artist, he was a tour DJ for an independant record label that pulled together his contacts he build up to make an album. I only pulled him out as an example because it's someone I actually know of and his earnings from Spotify.

Musicians need to adapt to online streaming and are having a hard time applying metrics to quantify how much they should earn per play.

The main point I guess I'm trying to make is that with this new service, instead of 9 cents, he would get more than 9 cents.

For artists, they went through a phase of having music available phsically with a definitive value of how much money they earn based on units sold.
That had to be modified when online sales came about, and they got into a phase of where they were able to get X amount from a 99cent download of a track from iTunes.
Now it's a matter of finalising on a value for a streamed song. The new service adds a bit of competition there that would be faviourable to the musician if Tidal caught on.

From my own perspective, I listen to alot, and I mean ALOT of music. I stream alot of it through Bandcamp, I acquire lots more. I tried Spotify but didn't like how it killed performance of my laptop, but it was pretty decent for listening to what I wanted instantly. I had it on my phone for a while but found I wanted to listen to my own music I put on the device instead.
I dont think I'll even try Tidal!
But I always support the artists that I like, I'll buy thier CDs, buy merch at gigs etc.

Iwasfrozen

Mint Aero wrote: »

If he uploaded it to Youtube, he would get about 30k for it plus the 2k. 32k is really good in anybodies book for a sh*t song. Musicians don't need to be paid millions for music. It isn't worth it.

It's not for you to decide what other people should or shouldn't be paid. If musicians are unhappy with spotify they have a right to find alternatives.

Mint Aero

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not for you to decide what other people should or shouldn't be paid. If musicians are unhappy with spotify they have a right to find alternatives.

Actually I think you'll that I was giving my opinion on what I think is enough cash for a 4 minute song. I wasn't declaring myself nominee for chief salary appointing engineer.