I like Tidal but

afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
I am not sure that I want to give my money to the stake holders. I don't know if the list that I read is current but it was like a "who's who" of sphincters.
«1

Comments

  • rooftop59rooftop59 Posts: 3,413
    What big business corporation DO u want to give your money to? They are all greedy bastages lol
  • afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
    One that hasn't been around for millions of years and has poison glands
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,202
    afterburnt wrote: »
    One that hasn't been around for millions of years and has poison glands

    Apple doesn't have a stake in Tidal....lol
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,202
    afterburnt wrote: »
    I am not sure that I want to give my money to the stake holders. I don't know if the list that I read is current but it was like a "who's who" of sphincters.

    LOL....actually that's one of the main reasons I won't buy into it. Sometimes voicing your opinion with your wallet speaks volumes.
  • tophatjohnnytophatjohnny Posts: 1,899
    My wife bought into Sirius Radio because that was on board in the Pathfinder we bought. I guess it's ok but when in the house I control the quality and for the most past the genre that is played and will never pay out for Tidal in my life. Did I say never?? I do get it for those that just don't have the libraries nor the time to build one, or the folks that could care less and 20 bucks a month is ok? I'm sure the service is ok? Just not getting into my knickers!!
  • afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
    I am on the fence about keeping it. I get to hear a lot of stuff that I would buy and a lot more that I wouldn't. At this point, it would probably be cheaper to buy the titles that I absolutely have to have than paying for the subscription. If they got it down to Netflix prices I would keep it, I think. But then I thought Netflix was too expensive lol.
  • txcoastal1txcoastal1 Posts: 7,408
    I use it because I travel. It's convenient, and has an offline mode. I'm sure the others have this feature.

    I also like it when we do audio shows and GTG's...flick of a switch for requests
  • afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
    txcoastal1 wrote: »
    I use it because I travel. It's convenient, and has an offline mode. I'm sure the others have this feature.

    I also like it when we do audio shows and GTG's...flick of a switch for requests

    yeah I forgot about that, how does it work?
  • afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
    “Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” Keys said. She quoted Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”

    Most of those **** don't make music as far as I am concerned. I liked Alecia Keys until I found out what a fucktard **** she is.
  • andrew82andrew82 Posts: 134
    afterburnt wrote: »
    “Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” Keys said. She quoted Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”

    Most of those **** don't make music as far as I am concerned. I liked Alecia Keys until I found out what a fucktard **** she is.

    The whole idea is that all artists are paid higher royalty fees for their work used on Tidal than they would receive on Apple Music or Spotify. Alicia Keys's reasoning in her quote is that, by lowering the value of what musicians can earn for their work, less music will be produced. Seems pretty sound to me.
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 6,841
    Overreaction.jpg
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 6,841
    One of Spotify's owners says it's NOT unlikely that Facebook buys the company

    http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gp-bullhound-facebook-might-buy-spotify-before-the-ipo-2016-9
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 6,841
    Pandora Is Paying $90 Million Because Of Its Shady Streaming Practices

    http://www.businesspundit.com/pandora-is-paying-90-million-because-of-its-shady-streaming-practices/
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,202
    andrew82 wrote: »
    afterburnt wrote: »
    “Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” Keys said. She quoted Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”

    Most of those **** don't make music as far as I am concerned. I liked Alecia Keys until I found out what a fucktard **** she is.

    The whole idea is that all artists are paid higher royalty fees for their work used on Tidal than they would receive on Apple Music or Spotify. Alicia Keys's reasoning in her quote is that, by lowering the value of what musicians can earn for their work, less music will be produced. Seems pretty sound to me.

    I'm ok with less music being produced, as long as it's quality stuff. What's the point of paying more, for more music, if most of it is junk ? Insert Mel Brooks quote....

    "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs"....that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Tidal may pay artists more, but it isn't that much more. Most artists today make the money touring, not by you streaming it from a service, Tidal included. The older artist who don't tour like Tidal and other services for their own revenue stream even though they aren't putting out new music. Paying extra isn't going to bring them out of retirement. Just isn't enough good artists in my view today to even want new music from. Some, but not many.

  • rooftop59rooftop59 Posts: 3,413
    tonyb wrote: »
    andrew82 wrote: »
    afterburnt wrote: »
    “Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” Keys said. She quoted Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”

    Most of those **** don't make music as far as I am concerned. I liked Alecia Keys until I found out what a fucktard **** she is.

    The whole idea is that all artists are paid higher royalty fees for their work used on Tidal than they would receive on Apple Music or Spotify. Alicia Keys's reasoning in her quote is that, by lowering the value of what musicians can earn for their work, less music will be produced. Seems pretty sound to me.

    I'm ok with less music being produced, as long as it's quality stuff. What's the point of paying more, for more music, if most of it is junk ? Insert Mel Brooks quote....

    "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs"....that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Tidal may pay artists more, but it isn't that much more. Most artists today make the money touring, not by you streaming it from a service, Tidal included. The older artist who don't tour like Tidal and other services for their own revenue stream even though they aren't putting out new music. Paying extra isn't going to bring them out of retirement. Just isn't enough good artists in my view today to even want new music from. Some, but not many.

    old **** ramblings blah blah blah... :p :* to uncle Tony
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 6,841
    tonyb wrote: »
    andrew82 wrote: »
    afterburnt wrote: »
    “Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” Keys said. She quoted Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”

    Most of those **** don't make music as far as I am concerned. I liked Alecia Keys until I found out what a fucktard **** she is.

    The whole idea is that all artists are paid higher royalty fees for their work used on Tidal than they would receive on Apple Music or Spotify. Alicia Keys's reasoning in her quote is that, by lowering the value of what musicians can earn for their work, less music will be produced. Seems pretty sound to me.

    I'm ok with less music being produced, as long as it's quality stuff. What's the point of paying more, for more music, if most of it is junk ? Insert Mel Brooks quote....

    "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs"....that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Tidal may pay artists more, but it isn't that much more. Most artists today make the money touring, not by you streaming it from a service, Tidal included. The older artist who don't tour like Tidal and other services for their own revenue stream even though they aren't putting out new music. Paying extra isn't going to bring them out of retirement. Just isn't enough good artists in my view today to even want new music from. Some, but not many.

    You're discrediting an entire demographic. You or I don't like Justin Beiber but people like Larry's daughter love the dude's music.
  • rooftop59rooftop59 Posts: 3,413
    tonyb wrote: »
    andrew82 wrote: »
    afterburnt wrote: »
    “Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” Keys said. She quoted Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”

    Most of those **** don't make music as far as I am concerned. I liked Alecia Keys until I found out what a fucktard **** she is.

    The whole idea is that all artists are paid higher royalty fees for their work used on Tidal than they would receive on Apple Music or Spotify. Alicia Keys's reasoning in her quote is that, by lowering the value of what musicians can earn for their work, less music will be produced. Seems pretty sound to me.

    I'm ok with less music being produced, as long as it's quality stuff. What's the point of paying more, for more music, if most of it is junk ? Insert Mel Brooks quote....

    "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs"....that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Tidal may pay artists more, but it isn't that much more. Most artists today make the money touring, not by you streaming it from a service, Tidal included. The older artist who don't tour like Tidal and other services for their own revenue stream even though they aren't putting out new music. Paying extra isn't going to bring them out of retirement. Just isn't enough good artists in my view today to even want new music from. Some, but not many.

    In all seriousness, I can easily list 100 artists that I listen to on tidal (many in the last month) that have released new music within the last 2 years, and many have MQA albums on tidal.

    The scientific fact is that for most of us, the "best" music is the music we heard from about 15-25, because this is when frontalization is happening and longterm memories get encoded with the highest emotional content, and are thus remembered longer and with more salience.

    I think it would be interesting to study the generation gap here. I think that one reason that I do not have a hard time finding new music is because there is still a lot of stuff coming out by artists that I listened to in my youth, and music that sounds similar to artists I liked. At some point that will trickle off, and it may well happen that is when I join the ranks of the curmudgeons whining that there isn't anything good on the 8-track anymore :'( :D
  • afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
    edited May 31
    @rooftop59 most of the music I buy now is older than me or made when I was in the single digits. I have countless CD's and literally, a hand full of them were produced this century. There is some pretty obscure good stuff out there that is still being produced but it sure aint popular. The people want doo doo and lemonade so that is what is out there. I have more stuff from dead people than anything else and there is a good reason for that.
  • afterburntafterburnt Posts: 2,915
    Between 15 and 25 I was pretty much loaded all of the time so nothing really developed then. That is why I look like Beetle Juice with way better teeth.
  • rooftop59rooftop59 Posts: 3,413
    afterburnt wrote: »
    @rooftop59 most of the music I buy now is older than me or made when I was in the single digits. I have countless CD's and literally, a hand full of them were produced this century. There is some pretty obscure good stuff out there that is still being produced but it sure aint popular. The people want doo doo and lemonade so that is what is out there. I have more stuff from dead people than anything else and there is a good reason for that.

    Well, all I can say is that you are what they call a statistical abnormality lol...but there is nothing wrong with that. Rock on...

    For most of the population (including a lot of audiophiles and music lovers), tidal is a great resource...
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,202
    You guys are killing me. lol Man, don't take my comments so seriously, it's just my perspective, not everyones.

    Much of todays music doesn't appeal to me. Maybe a generation thing, I dunno. Much like our parents weren't too keen on rock and roll, right ? They thought it was all downhill after Elvis. lol

    I don't own one song from any of those artists /owners of Tidal. When I search for new music on my Sonos, nothing stands out to me as something I'd like to listen to. I do like Bruno Mars though, the man's got some talent. ;)

    Here's my thoughts on music......it has to move me, appeal to me in some way. I don't want to have to appeal to the artists and their sense of worth. I'm not painting ALL of todays music with a broad brush, just a good amount of it.
  • rednedtugentrednedtugent Posts: 9,865
    Music died after Glenn Miller's plane went down.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 27,202
    Music died after Glenn Miller's plane went down.

    I wouldn't go that far....but....get off my lawn dang it ! lol
  • kevhed72kevhed72 Posts: 2,754
    I'll tack my question one right here....doesn't Spotify offer a high Rez service which is roughly half the price of Tidal? In a nutshell, I hesitate paying another subscription but comparing that to the cost of SACDs. Also, I'm not sure if there a lot of SACDs out there with newer, rock/alternative/college bands....seems like Spotify has a decent selection of music made after 2010 or so....,
  • rooftop59rooftop59 Posts: 3,413
    edited June 3
    Spotify premium is 320 Mbps. $10 per month. Tidal hifi is cd quality flac, like 1100-1200 Mbps. $20 per month. Tidal also offers a $10 version at the same bit rate as Spotify, but if that's all I wanted I would go with Spotify as I do find it more user friendly. I have used tidal for over a year (after a couple trials before that) and now very rarely buy any new albums. That $20 per month is basically my entire music budget...

    Now Spotify is beta testing a hifi tier, and if/when it comes out it will probably be the same price as tidal - $20 per month. But there has not been any official word in when it's coming or even that it is for sure...
  • kevhed72kevhed72 Posts: 2,754
    Ok....so couple of follow up questions. Which catalogue would have more selection ya think? Also, how does the 320 mps of Tidal compare to their normal service?
  • rooftop59rooftop59 Posts: 3,413
    kevhed72 wrote: »
    Ok....so couple of follow up questions. Which catalogue would have more selection ya think? Also, how does the 320 mps of Tidal compare to their normal service?

    I think Spotify has a slightly bigger catalog overall, but tidal offers some albums and artists that Spotify doesn't. E.g. Before his death, prince's catalog was only available on tidal. Overall for me it's a wash...

    Tidal's 320 Mbps option @ $10 per month is the exact same service as the hifi option. Only difference is sound quality.
  • Spotify supposedly has 40 million plus subscribers. I expect there is going to be a shakeout and/or consolidation in the online streaming music business. I had Rhapsody about 10 years ago (now called Napster). Rhapsody bought out Napster and then adopted their name. I would not be surprised to see another consolidation/merger happen- kinda like what happens in the Cable TV industry. Companies can leverage the subscriber income stream from the company they want to buy out to get financing for the buyout.

    I like Spotify much more than the old Rhapsody. Music streaming may eventually lead to the death of the CD.
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 6,841
    edited June 3
    Spotify is 320 kbps (OGG Vorbis) not mbps, Tidal is CD quality at 1,411 kbps (FLAC).
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!