Draco Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Holy Halibut. His head is massive back there. He could probably scare someone. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 this is also pretty.... cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaytheblue Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 All I actually care about on that playlist... Or about any of this for that matter because Im not too into paying 20.00 for music I could listen to anywhere else for basically free. Or on iTunes for a price but saving on my internet usage- is Bittersweet Symphony. Basically one of the best songs I've ever listened to and it makes me so happy... And sad-ish at the same time:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev72 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Really don't think they've thought this Tidal thing properly. Here are a few problems I've come up with: 1. Why would people part with $20 a month ($240 a year) for the most expensive service of its kind which is run by a group with a combined wealth running into multiple billions of dollars whilst their main rival Spotify charges half of that? From the outside looking in, it looks like these artists are getting greedy. 2. Why are they short-changing the UK market? They're charging £20 a month in the UK which is the equivalent of $29.50. In other words, this service costs nearly 50% more than it does in America! A yearly subscription therefore costs £240/$355 a year, which is a huge amount of money! Spotify does exactly the same thing as well which I don't get. It doesn't cost any extra to provide the same service in the UK, so why charge significantly more!!! 3. Does the USP of hi-quality music really warrant £10/$10 extra? Not really. 4. I looked at most of the 'owners'' Spotify profiles and all of the ones I looked at had their entire music catalogue on there. You would have at least expected them to take their music off Spotify wouldn't you? Especially Jay-Z. So, in short, the combined wealth of the owners runs into multiple billions of dollars (IE. They are set for life, and they've set their children and their children, and almost certainly their children as well, up for life so they don't really need any more money), they are charging double the price of their main rivals, where I can still get all of the owners' music, the only USP over Spotify is a higher quality sound and they are also short-changing UK consumers (and probably consumers in many other countries) Sorry Chris, but just because you're endorsing this, it doesn't mean that I'm going to buy it. There is still the standard $10/£10 version, but given that this is exactly the same as Spotify, it's going to be tough for them to get subscriptions, even with the superstar endorsements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlas2000 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 this is also pretty.... cool I knew as soon as I noticed him doing that someone would GIF it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christa42 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 nev72 you have some interesting points. I think it's that the artists want to be in more control of their music, I get that. I need to do some more reading on this. I want to see what the benefits are for the customer/fan. Tidal is saying it is more of an artist/fan "experience" but what exactly is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grids Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Sorry but not sorry but I'm surprised the fact that Tidal is charging customers so much money for a streaming music service. I mean if I look at, say like, Pandora radio. I have paid $36 a year for free-ads about 5 years ago and thought it was still worthy because the competitors back then werent as good as Pandora and they have got better choices of songs in every single radio. Sadly it is only available in the US but for a $20 music service per month on a streaming music radio nowadays is very costly and nev72 has great points that the artists are getting greedy. And Christa, I'm confused on that point too about the more feel of 'artists experience' in definition. Not sure where the direction is really going because I think, at the end of the day, the whole aim is basically the same as other music streaming service such as Deezer, Spotify, Rdio, Pandora, etc and for this Tidal I think Jay-Z brings notable artists to support the service and make sure it is visible by everyone across the world to see that this music service is different and unique, but again I dont know which part of uniqueness they are caring about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grids Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Some interesting facts I stumbled upon https://storify.com/_charlie123/mint-royale-on-tidal-streaming From wiki on finances: A monthly subscription costs $9.99. One artist has stated that artist royalties per track from Aspiro/Tidal are currently over three times than those paid by Spotify, but that royalties may decrease to provide a sufficient return on investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Here's the article I just published on Coldplaying.com - a summary too for those who are not sure about what all of this means Link (taking out most of the pics) <a href="http://www.coldplaying.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/tidal-artists_edited-1.jpg"><img src="http://www.coldplaying.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/tidal-artists_edited-1.jpg" alt="Chris Martin co-owns new music service, 'Tidal'" width="646" height="356" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47470" /></a> Wandering what all the fuss is about with the Cyan coloured backgrounds on Facebook/Twitter? It was all part of the (re)launch for Jay-Z's new streaming service, 'Tidal Hifi'. The new alternative to popular services, such as Spotify wanted to introduce itself with a bang and that certainly happened, with a huge gathering of celebrities, <strong>including Coldplay's Chris Martin (via Satellite)</strong>, Jack White and Kanye West. <!--more--> <a href="http://www.coldplaying.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/chrismartinkanye.png"><img src="http://www.coldplaying.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/chrismartinkanye.png" alt="Chris Martin and Kanye West" width="701" height="392" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47471" /></a> [video=youtube;g4K3vMZPACQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4K3vMZPACQ A massive media storm has been created by the wave of celebrities singing up to 'Tidal', rivaling <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2941305/Is-Apple-finally-launch-streaming-service-Beats-powered-app-launch-iOS-ANDROID-June.html" title="Apple streaming service" target="_blank">Apple's upcoming streaming service</a>. The reason why they were all so eager to join in? Aside from Chris Martin and other celebs being good friends with rapper, Jay-Z, <strong>they all own a share in 'Tidal', making them co-owners of the company!</strong> <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/audio/spotify-has-a-new-lossless-rival-and-it-s-called-tidal-1263912" title="Tidal launch" target="_blank">The original launch happened 6 months ago</a> but it was under-stated and Jay-Z will be hoping for bigger things this time round.<strong> 'Tidal Hifi' has announced itself as the first artist owned platform for music and video</strong> but will it change the music industry and make a lasting impact? Before we tell you more about the services of 'Tidal Hifi', the clash of interests between Apple and all of the artists involved in Jay-Z's new streaming service may potentially cause a divide between bands/artists. Coldplay, in particular have always had friendly ties with Apple and have seen their friends, U2 and Zane Lowe both sign up with Apple recently. Chris Martin and co have always, in recent times being happy to cross divides and showcase their music across all platforms. There are even rumours of the band signing up to Apple, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/09/09/u2-apple-and-the-deal-behind-getting-songs-of-innocence-free-of-charge/" title="U2 Apple" target="_blank">in the same way U2 have</a>, after their current record deal expires <a href="http://www.coldplaying.com/head-full-dreams-new-tour-need-know-far/" title="‘A Head Full Of Dreams’ & new tour – All you need to know!" target="_blank">following the release of their next album, <em>A Head Full Of Dreams</em></a>. It's also worth knowing of Jay-Z's co-venture offer for Apple. The rapper's intentions were not to rival Apple but after the collaboration offer was declined by the corporation's Jimmy Lovine, the two streaming services, the re-designed by Apple 'Beats Music' and 'Tidal Hifi' will go head-to-head rather than side-by-side. Streaming is increasingly popular, particularly among fans who listen to music on their mobile devices. But what benefits will you get with Tidal's new service? It's major punch is <a href="http://tidal.com/us/video/lossless-explained" title="Coldplay 320 FLAC" target="_blank">the lossless audio, rather than the standard 320kbps</a>. Coldplay's latest three albums, from <em>Viva La Vida or Death And All His Friends</em>, through to <em>Ghost Stories</em> will sound very impressive indeed, seeing as they cranked up the production and sound layers in their music, since Brian Eno's arrival to the band's studios in 2008. 'Tidal' can also boast about their very neat presentation and the 'exclusives' the service has promised to offer. Their are two pricing options, at $10 for the standard quality service or $20 for their 'lossless' high quality audio streaming. Artists/bands, who are available to stream on 'Tidal' will receive a larger % of profits compared to every other streaming service. Jay-Z and co do not possess a large degree of control over the music industry (Yet anyway), as record labels will still have the final say. With a long term strategy though, <strong>artists/bands such as Coldplay could be poached from their record labels, after their contract finishes. </strong> 'Tidal' has some questionable points too. Their $20 price package in the U.S. is £20 in the UK. You don't have to have an economics degree to work out that the price doesn't fairly translate! The $20 price alone has also begged the question, is double the price worth that increase in audio quality? And, are more exclusives from a different service really what the music industry needs? Music fans end up being excluded and are either forced to pay for it all, tie their loyalties to one service or search for alternative means. What do you think of Tidal's new streaming service? <a href="http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/threads/104239-Jay-Z-to-Start-own-subscription-service-quot-Tidal-quot-Chris-Martin-attends-via-Satellite" title="Coldplay streaming service" target="_blank">Let us know on our popular forum thread for the launch</a>. The (re)launch itself has gone down a treat on our forums but fans are generally skeptical on the service itself: By <strong>Black Rose</strong>: <blockquote><strong>Another streaming service, more albums tied up to just one provider on "exclusively" deals. More illegal downloading of said albums by consumers unwilling to pay for 3/4 different services in order to listen to albums. I wonder what "Tidal"s unique selling point will be over the competition to give it an edge, apart from "exclusive" deals?</strong></blockquote> <strong>Nev72</strong> wrote... <blockquote><strong>Really don't think they've thought this Tidal thing properly. Here are a few problems I've come up with: 1. Why would people part with $20 a month ($240 a year) for the most expensive service of its kind which is run by a group with a combined wealth running into multiple billions of dollars whilst their main rival Spotify charges half of that? From the outside looking in, it looks like these artists are getting greedy. 2. Why are they short-changing the UK market? They're charging £20 a month in the UK which is the equivalent of $29.50. In other words, this service costs nearly 50% more than it does in America! A yearly subscription therefore costs £240/$355 a year, which is a huge amount of money! Spotify does exactly the same thing as well which I don't get. It doesn't cost any extra to provide the same service in the UK, so why charge significantly more!!! 3. Does the USP of hi-quality music really warrant £10/$10 extra? Not really. 4. I looked at most of the 'owners'' Spotify profiles and all of the ones I looked at had their entire music catalogue on there. You would have at least expected them to take their music off Spotify wouldn't you? Especially Jay-Z. So, in short, the combined wealth of the owners runs into multiple billions of dollars (IE. They are set for life, and they've set their children and their children, and almost certainly their children as well, up for life so they don't really need any more money), they are charging double the price of their main rivals, where I can still get all of the owners' music, the only USP over Spotify is a higher quality sound and they are also short-changing UK consumers (and probably consumers in many other countries) Sorry Chris, but just because you're endorsing this, it doesn't mean that I'm going to buy it. There is still the standard $10/£10 version, but given that this is exactly the same as Spotify, it's going to be tough for them to get subscriptions, even with the superstar endorsements.</strong></blockquote> Have you tried out 'Tidal'? We would like to hear from you. <a href="http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/threads/104239-Jay-Z-to-Start-own-subscription-service-quot-Tidal-quot-Chris-Martin-attends-via-Satellite/page2" title="Coldplay experience" target="_blank">Please let us know about your Coldplay experience</a>, while using the streaming service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coeurli Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 This might be an unpopular opinion, but I really like the concept and I think it makes sense. It's one high-end music streaming service, so to me it makes sense that it's expensive. You gotta have the right equipment I guess to get all the benefits from it, but I see it all as a high-end service anyway so it makes sense to me. It's alright because there's an alternative proposition. Also, we keep bitching about how we as customers have to pay and pay more and more. All we see is that our wallets are getting empty and those rockstars are having loads of fun having nice ideas and celebrating themselves over champagne. So I get that it feels weird and somewhat bittersweet or boring. But if there's so much debate within the industry, among artists and bands, about all the different streaming services, isn't it because artists and bands currently don't feel like they're having much control or actual remuneration over how their music is being distributed?! And isn't the music industry ALSO about small, struggling artists and bands who are trying to make it in this huge mess? So if there's one streaming service that allows to have a more direct relationship between the artists and the customers, and most importantly that gives a voice, actual control, and more remuneration to artists, I don't see Tidal as one more annoying and expensive streaming service. I see it as something that at least comes with honest intentions and offers a fair deal. Everyone says artists have become greedy. They haven't. They're not getting paid the way they should be (and i'm not necessarily talking about Jay Z and Coldplay, I mean all bands and artists who have to make their music available on those services, in order to be noticed and to adapt to the market), and they're not getting the control they want over their music. I don't know, I feel it's only fair that artists take back the power. It's their product, their creation after all. It's not because we're at an age where everything has become free that it SHOULD be free. We've lost complete notion of the work and investment that comes behind the actual making of a music recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christa42 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 Interesting, Radiohead's "National Anthem" was being played while the owners signed the paper thingy. I wonder if RH is in on this and/or approve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 That was some awkward event LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coeurli Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 That was some awkward event LOL omg yes especially at the end, they were all just awkwardly standing there :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Interesting the Radiohead's "National Anthem" was being played while the owners signed the paper thingy. I wonder if RH is in on this and/or approve? yeah I wonder that too. I checked Thom yorke's twitter, he didnt write anything about that. I don't know if it is just me but the video where they all spoke about Tidal looked like a small section of a horror movie. Maybe it is because of the way they talked or the angle of camera.. but it created very very negative energy on me :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Rose Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Really don't think they've thought this Tidal thing properly. Here are a few problems I've come up with: 1. Why would people part with $20 a month ($240 a year) for the most expensive service of its kind which is run by a group with a combined wealth running into multiple billions of dollars whilst their main rival Spotify charges half of that? From the outside looking in, it looks like these artists are getting greedy. 2. Why are they short-changing the UK market? They're charging £20 a month in the UK which is the equivalent of $29.50. In other words, this service costs nearly 50% more than it does in America! A yearly subscription therefore costs £240/$355 a year, which is a huge amount of money! Spotify does exactly the same thing as well which I don't get. It doesn't cost any extra to provide the same service in the UK, so why charge significantly more!!! 3. Does the USP of hi-quality music really warrant £10/$10 extra? Not really. 4. I looked at most of the 'owners'' Spotify profiles and all of the ones I looked at had their entire music catalogue on there. You would have at least expected them to take their music off Spotify wouldn't you? Especially Jay-Z. So, in short, the combined wealth of the owners runs into multiple billions of dollars (IE. They are set for life, and they've set their children and their children, and almost certainly their children as well, up for life so they don't really need any more money), they are charging double the price of their main rivals, where I can still get all of the owners' music, the only USP over Spotify is a higher quality sound and they are also short-changing UK consumers (and probably consumers in many other countries) Sorry Chris, but just because you're endorsing this, it doesn't mean that I'm going to buy it. There is still the standard $10/£10 version, but given that this is exactly the same as Spotify, it's going to be tough for them to get subscriptions, even with the superstar endorsements. And unless you have a decent pair of speakers and a good sound card which can actually play the higher quality so that you will actually notice any difference over "lossy"? If you have a decent pair of speakers and can notice the differences than it is probably a good buy, but if you just have a laptop or a cheap pair of speakers then probably not worth it. Like watching HD video on a basic entry-level laptop screen. In the 'olden' days back before the days of the interweb, the money raised by successful bands paid the way for record labels to experiment with giving new bands a try out with an album, which they might get lucky and become the next Adele. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengoose Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm actually seriously embarrassed Chris has put his name with this...the rich get richer is all I see....sorry, you can fangirl all you want, but I dont see the other 3 men in my band partnering up with Jay Z. I work full time and make a good living, but there is NO flipping way you will EVER see me spending 20 a month on something I can get for free anywhere, esp when anything exclusive happens, we all share with each other anyways here or on twitter, tumblr etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gai Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 the only thing i would say to all those putting most if not all the blame on things coldplay seem (in their eyes) to be doing wrong on chris is this: coldplay have stressed again and again how they are a democracy. you can clearly see the importance of their founding principles when you see falling/breaking bands time and again. no way chris would do anything that the other members wholeheartedly disapprove. afterall chris does represent coldplay as the frontman and coldplay >>>>> chris or any individual in the band. based on how they have been in the band i would say each and every member is well aware of this. just wanted to say this since i have seen a tendency of blaming everything fans think is wrong with the band on chris. just my opinion. no way we know the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LiquidSky Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 ^yeap I would like for Chris to say something instead of all the other artist. Alicia Keys sounded like it was about the money. Wasn't her last album a flop? They make it sound like it is about the money "we are not a product" but you actually are. Not everybody likes or listens to all the artists that signed. If it was really about "Art" then you would give the people to pay as little or as much for your "art" like Radiohead. I feel like Chris had a hard time saying No to this.... Even in the commercial video, it seems like he is still thinking about it. Even though I would like to have all those "exclusive" clips because of Coldplay, I would not be using their service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christa42 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 True, I think Chris would never do something that represented Coldplay without the group's consent. sometimes the messenger gets the most flack/gets hanged if the general public does not like what they are doing. But we have learned Chris does represent Coldplay in these sorts of events, groups, gatherings, etc. They must have their reasons for doing this. And yes, the band cares what we think, but It is not going to sway them in life/busisness decisions. I am scouring the internet on what Thom Yorke/Radiohead has anything to say about(or does not give a shit about) on this subject. So many sides to a coin with this one! God love Madonna for getting those Baby Coldplay pics! #dathair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alisbe Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Well, in fact I was so excited about the Tidal announcement. I thought they would explain what is the purpose of launching a platform own by artists, but I kinda feel they just want us to see how they signed a declaration. Maybe it was just a message for the music industry to show how they are able to take the control of their music. However, it wasn't clear for the fans how they are benefitted by purchasing an expensive service. In an article http://m.billboard.com/entry/view/id/119704 Jay-Z said we buy water even though there are places where it's free, but it's a bad analogy as we buy water to survive and we buy music to have fun, to be entertained. It's clear everyone wants to have what is fair, but no everyone is able to do what they did. This is when it becomes a selfish step for the rest of the world. Some of you have mentioned they are rich, they have earned millions of dollars along they career. But it's true that there are musicians who don't receive what it's supposed they should have. If we look at that perspective we'll understand why they are joining in this project. But we won't understand if singers like Taylor Swift decide to leave platforms like spotify because it's unfair what they pay. Anyway, we are not inside the music business and we won't understand how it works unless we manage to be part of it. But something is sure, we have freedom to choose what we want to consume and we'll see the advantages and disadvantages of Tidal after a period of time, maybe right now is too early to express our opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Rose Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Hasn't "Tidal" been around for a few years before Jay-Z & Co purchased the company (WiMP?), rebranded it last November and had a bit launch now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coeurli Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Hasn't "Tidal" been around for a few years before Jay-Z & Co purchased the company (WiMP?), rebranded it last November and had a bit launch now? yeah, i think that's basically it. I guess the technology was there already but he added the whole "artist-owned" streaming service thing to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midnightmagic Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 that is too much money to pay for an online radio ... i would have wasted it for my daily food that is costed me around $20 a day .. maybe more it depends .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grids Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Meanwhile... Jay Z’s Music Service Replaces CEO, Fires ‘Handful’ of Employees Tidal, the music service owned by rapper Jay Z and more than a dozen fellow musicians, named Peter Tonstad as interim chief executive officer, replacing Andy Chen. Tonstad, who oversaw Tidal under its prior owner, “has a better understanding of the industry and a clear vision for how the company is looking to change the status quo,” according to an e-mailed statement Friday. Tidal also confirmed reports in the Swedish press that it fired some executives. “We’ve eliminated a handful of positions and refocused our companywide talent to address departments that need support and cut redundancies,” the company said in the statement. “Tidal’s offices globally will remain and grow. We are already hiring for several new positions now.” Jay Z acquired Tidal to give artists more control over the subscription streaming, the fastest-growing part of the music industry. Revenue from subscriptions climbed 39 percent to $1.57 billion last year, according to the U.K.-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industries. Tonstad is a former CEO of Aspiro Group, the Malmo, Sweden-based parent of Tidal that Jay Z bought this year. The most popular subscription service is owned by Spotify Ltd. Apple Inc. is remaking the service it acquired from Beats Electronics LLC. Tidal, which offers exclusive songs and videos from participating artists such as Nicki Minaj and Jay Z, has a high-quality streaming subscription for $19.99 a month and a standard service that starts at $9.99. The company doesn’t have free streaming product. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-17/jay-z-s-music-service-replaces-ceo-fires-handful-of-employees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gai Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 hahaa! noel gallagher seem to have given chris a hard time over tidal :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now