On the industrial side and technology, the launch of Tidal was undoubtedly the musical event of the week : sixteen popstar of the world who take the reins of the game and have a streaming service of their property, throwing himself into the fray where you are fighting Spotify, Deezer, Rdio and which will soon expand to new platforms of Apple and YouTube. The announcement was accompanied – on Tuesday in New York – from a presentation in style, impressive if only in terms of image: you do not often see on the same stage, next to each other, stars like Madonna and Beyoncé, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj, Jay Z and Kanye West, Chris Martin (Coldplay) and Usher, Calvin Harris and deadmau5, Jack White and Arcade Fire, Jason Aldean and J Cole, Daft Punk and Usher . All together, those in the flesh, and who by videoconference, those showing his own face and those hiding behind masks of the well-known scene.
But what Tidal? We are really facing a revolutionary service that will upset the status quo of the music industry (as claimed by the artists involved)? Let’s start with the answer to the first question. Besides being the title of a good album by Fiona Apple, Tidal is a streaming platform launched in 2014 by the Scandinavian Aspiro: similar to Spotify, but focused on the transmission of music in high quality ( the original address was tidalhifi.com). In recent months, Aspiro (who also runs the other streaming service WiMP) was purchased by producer and rapper Jay Z, through its subsidiary Project Panther Bidco, with a blitz of 56 million dollars . With the probable intention of anticipating Apple, which in the coming months will launch its expected service stream, Jay Z has accelerated the recovery of Tidal: contacted fifteen famous colleagues, met them at a meeting on the margins of the awards ceremony of the Grammys and convinced them to come on board.
Much of the narrative around Tidal has focused on this aspect: for once the masters of steam are the artists . Not a mix of entrepreneurs, venture capital and major record labels such as Spotify and even a giant of Silicon Valley type Apple or Google. It is not a speech just a facade: as it was revealed to the American press , Jay Z would be granted to each of his colleagues 3% of the shares of the company . In an interview with Billboard the rapper confirmed and stated that a second round of quota (lower) will be offered to other colleagues. The timing is perfect: for months the most critical voices against Spotify and streaming generally come precisely from the front of the artists , dissatisfied with the control exercised by the industry and technological record, for the excessive generosity in free and listen for the low royalties. Now they are taking the situation in hand.
But “the first service stream controlled by the artists” will bring benefits to the whole category or just to the privileged (and already millionaires) members of the magic circle seen in New York? is the questions that are repeated in these days virtually all commentators, also fueled by the silence that still hovers around the potential practical benefits that the artist would receive average in embracing the cause of Tidal. Neither Jay Z, nor his wife Beyoncé, neither Madonna nor Jack White, or another of the sixteen artists-owners shocked the world by announcing royalties precise and clearly higher than those guaranteed by competing services, forms share ownership (and not limited to big) or other news of this kind. Vania Schlögel, manager of Tidal, merely say to the New York Times that “payments will be higher than those of the services that are offered free supported by advertising.” It seems more aligned to the critical position of the majors against Spotify and streaming free, that a fierce roar anti-system.
As you know today and the structure of ‘offer of Tidal, it’s really hard not to see the operation as a simple (and sacred) attempt some popstar large caliber to get into potentially more profitable digital music : streaming; what according to data and prophecies will dominate the scene in the coming years, taking advantage of the now chronic decline in CD and of the newly initiated and perhaps even more massive collapse of paid downloads. It’s not even so farfetched that the idea to tease the imagination of Jay Z was not only or both the lament artist Average for the skimpy checks received from Spotify, YouTube and Pandora web radio, but rather the sensational exploits the other rapper and producer Dr. Dre , which last year sold to Apple for a figure of around three billion dollars his company’s Beats headphones and the homonymous platform stream (the one in Cupertino work to revive by the end of 2015). Even more than in the analog era, the bulk of the money on the Internet related to music flows in the offices on the upper floors of the pyramid, those of “aggregators” content. Compared to the past, perhaps today there is a chance for (some) artists to get into that room.
Another question emerges if we look at the new service from the point of view of the public . Why listeners should abandon Spotify, Deezer or their platform of choice to switch to Tidal? Is there some reason most concrete of choreography and spectacular rally vip in New York or the video of the meeting on the occasion of the Grammy where drinking champagne and congratulated us for the historical importance of the moment ( see below )? There is some element of technological innovation? A lower price? A catalog richer? An interface that provides a better experience (or even different) than that of competitors? It is too early to answer after a few days of testing, also remains strong because the impression that Jay Z has really made racing to launch immediately Tidal , keeping it as he bought, and then possibly add something new in the next months. But you can already do some reflection on the price, on the hi-fi and the catalog service.
The price. Tidal confirms what I had already guessed in recent months: for free streaming, 2015 will be a very difficult year . The free fall absolutely not in the plans of the new service, which was initially launched with a single subscription option high audio quality (and high cost: € 19.99 per month ), which is was then added the possibility of a subscription to the normal quality (a € 9.99 per month, the standard price of Spotify, Deezer and most likely the future service of Apple). There is one month free trial, after which you start to pay: no ifs, no buts, no freemium , no advertising.
Hi-fi. Since its Viking origins, Tidal was born as a streaming service in high quality. Immediately after the “power to the artists,” was to look where it made a strong campaign to launch the service. After two decades of universal subjection to MP3, the return to hi-fi on the Internet is one of the hot topics in the industry, supported by testimonials luxury like Neil Young (another artist to present a His entrepreneurial creature, the system high definition PonoMusic, has agreed to help many famous colleagues ). However, are not yet clear about two points: if the average user can really distinguish one stream high definition from a good quality MP3 and how much difference this would make him pay more for a service online. Especially the second point there are many doubts. In addition, it must be said that it is not the only platform Tidal stream music to offer high quality (it also does Deezer, albeit in partnership with the manufacturer of systems Sonos hi-fi, with the subscription Elite).
The catalog and exclusives. is another workhorse of Tidal, often mentioned in interviews and articles that I have told the launch. This is also a very sensitive issue. If the catalog based service is in line with that of competitors (several million songs available), the exclusive for now not particularly exceptional: a song by Rihanna, a 2006 film Daft Punk ( Electroma , for more available for free on YouTube ), an old television appearance of the White Stripes and a little more . Hard to think that it can be this kind of content to help you rip Tidal many customers to Spotify & amp; C. (something that he needed: at the end of 2014, subscribers reported by Aspiro, counting both Tidal that WiMP, were about 500 million, compared with 15 million paying Spotify and Deezer 6 million).
There are also at least three problems related to this aspect. The first is that Jay Z is not the only one to focus on the paper exclusive: in the past it did Spotify, does Google Play and in the industry already many rumors running on the flattery that the ex- record Jimmy Iovine would be doing to many leading artists because grant material exclusive to the next platform of Apple (company that, among other things, already with iTunes has been shown to have the portfolio and the ability to make real treasures : think of the Beatles catalog, who knows other than that one of the goals also Beats …).
The second problem is that most of the sixteen Tidal owners are still under contract with the majors and will have to see how much real freedom in the management of their music . Finally, there may be a risk that is too often overlooked: that the war between the exclusive Spotify, Deezer, Apple, Google and Tidal end up limiting the catalogs of all the services, also reducing the appeal for the public. When it comes to music on the Internet, it often tends to make parallel with the universe of piracy: besides gratuity, filesharing networks like Napster, Kazaa or Emule had a great strength in the catalog unlimited. Inside there you found pretty much everything. In the oceans less corsairs, the same holds true for YouTube. The game of exclusive could have an unpleasant effect boomerang, even more so when combined with the increase in prices (and with the farewell to free streaming) .
There is a lot more to say about Tidal and probably more will be added in the coming weeks. An interesting aspect for now passed almost in silence, is the possibility that in the end the new company will not only reveal a competitor to Spotify but also of the same major (Sony, Universal, Warner): maybe the secret goal of Jay Z, on the medium and long term, is to convince the artists to finish their recording contracts and to use the platform as a distribution channel of music . Taking into account that the royalties would increase immediately, the hypothesis of Tidal as a prototype of a major new generation governed by the artists could be not entirely far-fetched.
Returning to reality, maybe in the future we will have to re-write this post but currently the judgment of Tidal is of considerable interest and lack of enthusiasm. Or, better yet, in the face of the knowledge that you have especially a big marketing operation and repositioning the industrial, which for now are not seen however whether the announced epochal revolution. A think so perhaps are too many fans, who do not seem to have welcomed the new service as the mice of Hamelin, at least judging by the negative comments collected from Digital Music News on the social profiles of some of the artists involved. Also thumbs on YouTube tend decidedly downward. On the other hand, looking at the video in which artists toast and repeat sound bites like “change the course of history” and “a new beginning” (and reading the poster of Tidal, which begins: “every historical movement began with a group of a few individuals who shared a vision, a vision to change the status quo”) is really a little ‘difficult to give wrong to that user on Twitter that he asked: “why they behave as if they had found the cure for cancer? ”
No comments:
Post a Comment