Nietzsche187a

After a press event briefly quoted famed philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, I’m pleased to announce that the Ghost of Friedrich Nietzsche today will make his review of Tidal, the new streaming service. It’s a surprise, of course – the master of perspectivism doesn’t normally take time out of his day for something like this! So I’m honored. Here’s Fred:

Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest.
Did you see how they ripped off Spotify’s interface? Here, look at this image from Twitter. Shameful.

comparison

I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.
Seriously, this lineup of ultra-celebrities is pretentious as f***. Kanye, I’m looking at you. What, you think you’re some kind of Übermensch, or what?

If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Do a search for my favorite composer, Richard Wagner – there’s almost no music there. What’s there is all bargain bin recordings, poorly organized. Weaksauce.

Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.
If Spotify is already giving 70% of its revenues to artists, the issue is that streaming in general can’t pay the bills. So I don’t see how this is going to make things any better, really. Plus, don’t these people already have enough money?

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
However — can you tell the difference between AAC encoding and lossless FLAC? Because I sure as Hell can’t. I mean, kinda sorta. I’m going to save my ten bucks a month for some wine, because for art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication. And I’m dead, so I’m not really worried about my liver anyway. Speaking of —

That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
My money – Spotify will win this round. Just look out for iTunes streaming.

Now, for something for you CDM readers, just in case you think I’m not with the times, here’s Other People with their take on the composer I loved so dearly. He’s fine, by the way, thanks for asking. Advantage of being dead, lots of interesting characters around…

Disclaimer: this was not really written by Friedrich Nietzsche, and it isn’t even April 1 yet, so please, ghost of Friedrich Nietzsche, don’t haunt me in my sleep – particularly when I’m living so near Prussia. Thanks. I… would like to have you do a round-up of Eurorack at Musikmesse, however, if you’re game.

Previous post

Now littleBits Modules Play with MIDI, USB, CV: Videos

Next post

These Students Put Out Fires with The Power of Bass

  • synthetic

    I don’t get the Tidal hate. Paying artists more, providing higher-quality audio to people who want it, why all the ridicule? Everyone who is making fun of pretentious millionaire artists and worthless audio benefits. Sure I don’t hear any difference in that Killers track, but in well-recorded stuff like the Eagles and Dixie Chicks examples there was a difference to me. Even on headphones in a crowded office.

    • Kid3000

      No, there is no audible difference that in any way would impact average listener during normal listening session. In any other situation it’s easier to measure that difference using specialised measuring equipment than your ears.

    • eyefudge

      I’m not convinced that Tidal will pay artists any more than other streaming services. That is, apart from the 16 artists who each get 3% stakes plus a $3m sweetener.

    • Freeks

      I don’t either get it. It’s good that Spotify get’s competition. Spotify just removed it’s best part: Apps. It’s also force feeding major label “curated” content.

      As a very long time spottily premium user i’m gonna give Tidal a chance. Basic version not the HQ. I’m happy with sound in Spotify but not with the client and the way they are developing it.

      • But then Tidal isn’t the competition you want. It blatantly rips off the Spotify interface. It has a limited Web client with spotty browser support outside chrome. There’s no desktop client. There’s no API that I can see in use yet, certainly nothing like apps. (I’ve already heard back from app developers whose tools I use and at least they say they’re happy to build outside the client… Whereas I have no idea yet whether Tidal’s developer support will be any good.)

        In short, the only thing that’s any different about this Spotify clone is the lossless streaming, which produces a result you can barely hear.

        • Kim

          And that you can’t use Tidal for free (again, if I got it right).

  • synthetic

    I don’t get the Tidal hate. Paying artists more, providing higher-quality audio to people who want it, why all the ridicule? Everyone who is making fun of pretentious millionaire artists and worthless audio benefits. Sure I don’t hear any difference in that Killers track, but in well-recorded stuff like the Eagles and Dixie Chicks examples there was a difference to me. Even on headphones in a crowded office.

    • Kid3000

      No, there is no audible difference that in any way would impact average listener during normal listening session. In any other situation it’s easier to measure that difference using specialised measuring equipment than your ears.

    • eyefudge

      I’m not convinced that Tidal will pay artists any more than other streaming services. That is, apart from the 16 artists who each get 3% stakes plus a $3m sweetener.

    • Freeks

      I don’t either get it. It’s good that Spotify get’s competition. Spotify just removed it’s best part: Apps. It’s also force feeding major label “curated” content.

      As a very long time spottily premium user i’m gonna give Tidal a chance. Basic version not the HQ. I’m happy with sound in Spotify but not with the client and the way they are developing it.

      • But then Tidal isn’t the competition you want. It blatantly rips off the Spotify interface. It has a limited Web client with spotty browser support outside chrome. There’s no desktop client. There’s no API that I can see in use yet, certainly nothing like apps. (I’ve already heard back from app developers whose tools I use and at least they say they’re happy to build outside the client… Whereas I have no idea yet whether Tidal’s developer support will be any good.)

        In short, the only thing that’s any different about this Spotify clone is the lossless streaming, which produces a result you can barely hear.

        • Kim

          And that you can’t use Tidal for free (again, if I got it right).

  • ZooTooK

    What will Tidal pay back to the content owners? Spotify claims 70% of their revenue. What percentage will Tidal pay? And are independent record companies/artists be treated equally to majors? I havn’t found anything describing this.

    • The other question is *which* artists. Why was Taylor Swift willing to make a deal with Tidal, but not with Spotify? It seems a sweeter deal is one possibility. And releasing illuminati-style videos with famous artists isn’t going to discourage that notion.

      Tidal would still be obligated to pay licensing fees like everyone else, of course. But then we’ve still no idea what total revenue looks like. So any promises of giving “more” to the artists have to be seen to be believed.

      • Kim

        If I understood it correctly (but I might not have), the free streaming tier was an issue.

      • missingapoint

        Hi Peter,

        I think you are missing a key point in what is happening here.

        1) The major labels own the publishing rights to the artists music.
        2) The majors through lobbying alongside the tech industry, have been able to get a clause amended to copyright law which allows them to “lend” an artist’s music to third parties for the purpose of appraisal, without charging them usual high licensing fees. These high licensing fees would usually work their way back to the artists. So for free, the streaming platforms can use the music with the artists seeing nothing.

        3) In exchange for this free lending, the majors then request a share holding in the streaming platform. They are smart enough to realize that the big money is not from the licensing fees, but from an IPO by the streaming platform. You probably have read about the majors requesting share holdings in the various streaming start-ups.

        4) When the IPO happens, the major label makes a serious amount of money. However none of this money makes it’s way back to the artist at all.

        So in short it is all about the IPO. The artists are simply trying to get in on the game too as they are currently excluded.

        • Yes, I definitely missed that. That’s a very nasty revolution, indeed.

          • missingapoint

            I think it is not really the streaming platforms fault. The performance rights organisations, who are meant to work on behalf of the artists, are really just a bull dog for the major publishers. In Europe, the PROs have backed off from Soundcloud in a way they didn’t from Youtube ( where there is no hope of getting any value from an IPO). This is because the major publishers requested them to do so while they negotiate a share holding. Basically they have a gun to their heads. They either have to let the majors in via a shareholding or the majors set the PROs on them.

            An even bigger issue I see at the moment is that you have a number of VC backed companies getting close to 1 billion dollar evaluations and then public companies with massive war chests getting involved: Spotify, Soundcloud, Apple, Google via Youtube, Tidal. The problem is that the music industry is just not big enough. Only one company will triumph and go on to monopolize the market in the way iTunes did before streaming came along. So we are going to see some serious corrections when this company triumphs, either towards the end of the year or early 2016.

            In the valley they are already taking about a bubble forming. On paper it looks less like the dotcom era, because they are not IPOing and then collapsing on the public stock exchange, the money is all coming in at late stage financing pre-IPO. The bubble is there but it is being masked by old measurements being applied so is not as obvious. It’s almost like late stage VC funding is the new IPO. How this will pan out is any ones guess as there isn’t a precedence.

        • Zootook

          So the major record companies has made a deal with Spotify in their favor when Tidal will make a deal in the favor of the artist? It sounds like the artists need to get in control of their work.

          • missingapoint

            I don’t know the ins and outs, but the deals are probably the same. In both cases the artist’s music will have to be licensed in the same way regardless of whether artists are shareholders or not. The majors are in charge.

            The only difference really between Tidal and Spotify is that the artists ( or at least some major label ones ) will benefit from a potential IPO.

          • zootook

            So it will only be the artists signing up before the IPO that will gain anything out of this. Artsist in the future will be in the same “poor” position…

  • ZooTooK

    What will Tidal pay back to the content owners? Spotify claims 70% of their revenue. What percentage will Tidal pay? And are independent record companies/artists be treated equally to majors? I havn’t found anything describing this.

    • The other question is *which* artists. Why was Taylor Swift willing to make a deal with Tidal, but not with Spotify? It seems a sweeter deal is one possibility. And releasing illuminati-style videos with famous artists isn’t going to discourage that notion.

      Tidal would still be obligated to pay licensing fees like everyone else, of course. But then we’ve still no idea what total revenue looks like. So any promises of giving “more” to the artists have to be seen to be believed.

      • Kim

        If I understood it correctly (but I might not have), the free streaming tier was an issue.

      • missingapoint

        Hi Peter,

        I think you are missing a key point in what is happening here.

        1) The major labels own the publishing rights to the artists music.
        2) The majors through lobbying alongside the tech industry, have been able to get a clause amended to copyright law which allows them to “lend” an artist’s music to third parties for the purpose of appraisal, without charging them usual high licensing fees. These high licensing fees would usually work their way back to the artists. So for free, the streaming platforms can use the music with the artists seeing nothing.

        3) In exchange for this free lending, the majors then request a share holding in the streaming platform. They are smart enough to realize that the big money is not from the licensing fees, but from an IPO by the streaming platform. You probably have read about the majors requesting share holdings in the various streaming start-ups.

        4) When the IPO happens, the major label makes a serious amount of money. However none of this money makes it’s way back to the artist at all.

        So in short it is all about the IPO. The artists are simply trying to get in on the game too as they are currently excluded.

        • Yes, I definitely missed that. That’s a very nasty revolution, indeed.

          • missingapoint

            I think it is not really the streaming platforms fault. The performance rights organisations, who are meant to work on behalf of the artists, are really just a bull dog for the major publishers. In Europe, the PROs have backed off from Soundcloud in a way they didn’t from Youtube ( where there is no hope of getting any value from an IPO). This is because the major publishers requested them to do so while they negotiate a share holding. Basically they have a gun to their heads. They either have to let the majors in via a shareholding or the majors set the PROs on them.

            An even bigger issue I see at the moment is that you have a number of VC backed companies getting close to 1 billion dollar evaluations and then public companies with massive war chests getting involved: Spotify, Soundcloud, Apple, Google via Youtube, Tidal. The problem is that the music industry is just not big enough. Only one company will triumph and go on to monopolize the market in the way iTunes did before streaming came along. So we are going to see some serious corrections when this company triumphs, either towards the end of the year or early 2016.

            In the valley they are already taking about a bubble forming. On paper it looks less like the dotcom era, because they are not IPOing and then collapsing on the public stock exchange, the money is all coming in at late stage financing pre-IPO. The bubble is there but it is being masked by old measurements being applied so is not as obvious. It’s almost like late stage VC funding is the new IPO. How this will pan out is any ones guess as there isn’t a precedence.

        • Zootook

          So the major record companies has made a deal with Spotify in their favor when Tidal will make a deal in the favor of the artist? It sounds like the artists need to get in control of their work.

          • missingapoint

            I don’t know the ins and outs, but the deals are probably the same. In both cases the artist’s music will have to be licensed in the same way regardless of whether artists are shareholders or not. The majors are in charge.

            The only difference really between Tidal and Spotify is that the artists ( or at least some major label ones ) will benefit from a potential IPO.

          • zootook

            So it will only be the artists signing up before the IPO that will gain anything out of this. Artsist in the future will be in the same “poor” position…

  • DPrty

    I’m just going to sell cassette tapes of my music.

  • DPrty

    I’m just going to sell cassette tapes of my music.

  • Michael Minnick

    Tidal pays out 75% of their revenue to artist.

    A music streaming app with a legitimate way to support your favorite artist. Also, I am an active member and I appreciate the sound quality and cool exclusive videos.

  • Michael Minnick

    Tidal pays out 75% of their revenue to artist.

    A music streaming app with a legitimate way to support your favorite artist. Also, I am an active member and I appreciate the sound quality and cool exclusive videos.