Just like you get from a CD. I take the Tidal test by
pressing a button: it prompts me to compare lossless versions of five tracks
with their compressed, mp3-style equivalent. As I listen to excerpts of tracks
by The Killers, James Blake, Daft Punk, The Eagles and Dixie Chicks, I switch
between the swanky hi-fi version and the lo-fi one.
Even on
moderately expensive speakers, the difference is barely perceptible. I only
manage to identify three out of the five lossless versions. In response, the
site prompts me to “sit back, relax, concentrate, turn the volume up and try
again.” It’s as if I’ve failed a task of musical appreciation. But I haven’t
failed. If anything, it demonstrates that Tidal may be failing to persuade us
that paying £19.49 a month for hi-fidelity audio offers us any benefit over the
compressed equivalent at Spotify for £9.99 a month.
Jay Z
will have noticed YouTube’s phenomenal success as a music platform; it provides
fairly convincing proof that consumers, particularly younger ones, don’t care
that much about fidelity. As Jay Z and his pals Alicia Keys, Kanye West,
Rihanna, Beyoncé, Madonna and Nicki Minaj walked on stage in New York for an
awkward Tidal launch, generations of young people will have responded by
listening to some YouTube clip on their phone, the music blaring tinnily out of
a speaker the size of a grain of rice. And they won’t have paid a cent for the
privilege.
If higher fidelity doesn’t persuade us to start using Tidal, then maybe some exclusive material will? Beyoncé’s song “Die with You” was one of Tidal’s first exclusives, and the song has already been leaked on YouTube. There is no magic solution.
The purchase of
Tidal stems from a belief that Spotify et al are treating artists unfairly,
particularly with the kind of free, ad-supported streaming model that 45
million Spotify customers currently enjoy.
“It’s my opinion
that music should not be free,” wrote Taylor Swift in a piece for the Wall Street
Journal last year, shortly
after removing her music from Spotify. “My prediction,” she continued, “is that
individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price
point is.” Many disagree. A musician’s belief in the artistic value of their
work cannot, in this crazy digital age, be directly correlated to its monetary
value, however hard they wish that it could.
Fortunately,
young people still love music, and they prefer to stream it – although they’re
obviously not swimming in cash. This tech-savvy younger generation has helped
to increase streaming revenues in the US beyond that of CD revenues. The rise
of Spotify and Deezer (another on-demand music service), the launch of Google
Play Music and Apple’s acquisition of the streaming service Beats Music all
demonstrate one fact: the only way to keep us consuming music legally is to
offer it on-demand at a low price.
Three months ago, prior to Jay Z’s purchase, Tidal was a struggling service with a mere 12,000 users in around half a dozen territories including the UK and the USA. The music streaming industry has, for some time, tried to persuade us that we might pay more for a product that supposedly sounds better; Spotify has a “high quality” option available for those who abandon the free service in favour of the £9.99 Premium one; Qobuz, a smaller French streaming service, doubles its charge from £9.99 to £19.99 a month for a lossless (CD quality) audio experience, while Deezer offers an “Elite” (lossless) option to those who commit to its £9.99 monthly charge for a full year. “You can now listen to performances as the artist intended,” boasts Deezer. But there’s little evidence these arguments cut much ice with the average punter.
The truth is
that Tidal is a decent product. The Chrome-based browser version and its iOS
and Android equivalent are slick, the music sounds great and visually it bears
a striking resemblance to Spotify. Making the switch from one to the other
certainly wouldn’t represent much of a trauma.
But why make it? “Our intent,”
said Alicia Keys at Tidal’s launch, “is to preserve music’s importance in our
lives.” This intent is misconceived; young people tell us that music is as
important to them as it ever was, and this will remain the case, regardless of
audio fidelity. The real intent of Tidal, surely, is business-driven; the
artists believe that they should grab a greater slice of a pie that’s dwindling
in size. That’s a fair argument, although one perhaps not best presented by
Madonna.
Tidal could make
streaming work harder for musicians, integrating merchandise and ticket sales,
linking with funding platforms such as Kickstarter, using the muscle of bigger
artists to help smaller ones. At the moment, it’s a service offering minuscule
benefit to consumers, while its benefits for its artists are simply unknown.
No comments:
Post a Comment