Albums disappearing from TIDAL - beginning of its end?

I disagree (see my post above). Streaming has been great for me to learn about a variety of artists and their work. As I said, I have begun to purchase physical media again for the first time in 10 years. I now know what I am getting and I am willing to make purchase after purchase (as my wallet will allow).

In addition, as this thread has illuminated once again, artists and companies do not have to make deals with streamers. They do it because they see benefit. There are many examples of artists who have made their works unavailable to streamers, and then come back! I must say that I feel a little "wronged" when someone suggests that I am ripping off artists, when I am only responding to what THEY have made available to me for a fee that they and their representatives have agreed to. Sorry, not sorry. (No offense intended).

 

Not a "missing" album, but I thought the Cars' debut album was gone from Tidal this morning. Turns out, it's now listed with their "Compilations" rather than with their "Albums." I know it's easy to mistake it for a "Greatest Hits" collection, but really guys??

 

I also use Roon/Tidal in this way. Always a nice feeling to come across a better version of an album you’ve owned for a while.

 

I love browsing Spotify's New Releases every Friday morning. I've discovered a ton of artists / groups that I would not otherwise know about.

But that's just one of several sources I use for discovering new music. Forums like this one for example. My local library's "On Order" section is another.

My favourite, by far, are live music festivals like Ottawa's Jazz Festival, Bluesfest, Chamber Fest, and CityFolk Festival - to name but a few. There's dozens and dozens of artists whose albums are now in my collection as a result of me having seen them perform live. THE best way to enjoy music!

Jeff

 

To continue the original analogy ... Perhaps the restaurant lost its contract to serve Coke. Perhaps Coke increased its fee and the restaurant could no longer afford to, or chose not to, continue offering Coke. Perhaps too few people ordered Coke for the restaurant to continue selling it profitably.

Any one of those things could have happened to Tidal and the titles you no longer have.

 

I'd say it more like:
Maybe its time to re-evaluate the belief that streaming can negate the need to own media...

 

I still buy LP and CD and use Tidal as a leisure source. It streams to the deck or bedroom, stuff like that. It also works in my car from my phone!

I use the Masters subscription, I think it’s 20 bucks a month. I would like to see them survive.

I’d pay 50 a month for its perceived value to me. How high would others go, assuming the artists received the bulk of revenue above current costs?

 

I'd much prefer that a good, old-fashioned, cut-throat free-market system set the fees. That is the only way to assure high quality, long term service at competitive rates.

 

Releases, artists and labels are always coming and going on the streaming platforms, I wouldn't read too much into it OP.
It's just the mechanics of how these platforms work and how licenses are negotiated and renegotiated when they expire.
You'll usually find that something goes missing and then comes back after a while.

If this severely hampers your listening practices maybe that's a a sign that you might want to have your own music collection instead of renting someone else's.

 

At $240 a year with limited availability of titles (don't have all the Black Saint/Soul Note titles that Spotify has, for example), and software/service that doesn't have all the features I want or doesn't work all that well (no desktop app support for chromecast-based streaming to my Riva System, phone app freezes when interfacing with the Riva system; would much prefer high res FLAC to MQA, my phone will decode MQA but my hifi DAC and my casual listening Riva system won't) -- I'm already bumping up against the ceiling of what I'm willing to pay, particularly since I have to keep a second streaming subscription too -- to Spotify -- for a) more titles; b) ease of use for the rest of the family. Personally I wish Spotify would just add a 16/44.1 FLAC tier at $20 a month. I'd drop Tidal like a hot potato if that were the case. But I'm generally looking to lower expenses in my life and $600/ year would be way outside my range.

 

This is nothing new, it's been in place since Day One. Streaming services will be missing certain masterings, or even complete albums. And sometimes it's simply because those versions haven't even made it to a streaming transfer. And perhaps never will. Plus of course ongoing licensing issues / changes etc.

It's why I continue to purchase albums I like and digitally transfer albums I like. Streaming for discovery and albums I don't feel strongly enough to buy, purchases and CD / vinyl rips for the rest. Best of both worlds are which compliment each other.

 

Perhaps not in this forum so much, but for the general consumer it's very common where I live. Entire CD (and DVD) collections up to sale at garage sales, for example, as they've fallen out of favor for the owner and they just have streaming and/or digital copies from iTunes/Amazon for videos that they use now. [usually I'll ask btw, always curious when I see a large collection up for sale]

Most people I know have either stored their CD's in their closet by now, or sold them off. Same for LP's, twenty years earlier....and they haven't gotten the vinyl bug back yet.

 

You do suspect that the major labels will eventually get their act together and withdraw their artists from external streaming providers, then use their own platforms.

From a recent article, it seems that only 18% of all available music has been digitised/stored (I assume for streaming/download purposes). If that is the case, then 4 out of every 5 releases is only available in physical formats. It's why I use streaming as a convenience service, never a main source.

 

I can't even use Spotify without having to download their app.

I just go to Qobuz and cherry pick 16/44.1K of my favorite music. No apps needed even on my 2010 MacMini and OS 10.6.8.

Or I just record at 32bit Integer/44.1kHz through Quicktime Player off YouTube. I mean really, does anyone think we're going to run out of music if Tidal goes belly up? I don't.

 

You can use Spotify in a web browser, you don't need the mobile or desktop app. That said, same goes for Tidal and Qobuz aswell.

Spotify is much more accessible than Qobuz (which has the worst UI of the lot).
open.spotify.com

 

In Firefox 48 I get an alert on Spotify to download their app to even listen to music samples.

Besides I really don't stream. I just buy and download individual songs off albums I like or either have older poorly mastered CD versions. Qobuz has been working just fine for me in this regard.

 

The US isn't actually a free market, but that's another story entirely.

 

Are you referring to any online streaming services in particular? As far as I am concerned some of the albums were available pretty much at the same time as the CD's release. On the other hand it may not apply to all the artists. I am also not sure if it makes any sense for the record company to restrict the availability on some services and at the same time make it available on the others.

 

For music discovery and random background streaming, I'm perfectly happy with plain ole free Pandora. And with literally thousands of albums I already own waiting to be rediscovered, I don't have a burning desire to buy any super-duper reissues of old recordings in any format. I currently only buy media that has been recorded in 2015 or later.

Occasionally, I get tempted with some of the new Blue Note stuff that they are trotting out like popcorn, and I'm like, Naah. Great players, but I already have stuff by this or that guy. Since I started playing live music, I tend to get way more mileage out of the music I own than before, so anything new has to be pretty significant (in my mind) for me to even care about it. It can't just be "new" or "a different master".

 

True, certainly not in all cases.

 

You can etch that in stone. Internet/Tv/phone services have all been steadily jacking up the prices. I don't see streaming being any different.

 

He's using a very old and long unsupported OS - I assume that's why Firefox hasn't gotten an update either since ~2016.

 

For the vast majority of listeners, streaming is more than adequate. For obsessives who just have to have that 2015 remaster of Tug Of War, it isn't. These people represent about 1% of all music listeners, which is why physical media sales are in the toilet.

Because some people are effing morons.

95% of my listening the past three months has been via Spotify. Mostly dredging up old albums I once owned but don't anymore for a variety of reasons, single tracks I love but don't have in my library, or albums I was always curious about but never curious enough to spend $16 on.

And now I don't have to.

 

Amen! The mistake many make around here is assuming that everyone was buying physical media hand over first before streaming came along. They weren’t. Not everyone owned a top of the line hifi system before Bluetooth and iPods came along either.

 

FYI, you should check out the Arctic Fox web browser. It's based on Pale Moon (which itself was based on Firefox) and is regularly updated, but still works in Mac OS X 10.6.x:

Still on OS X 10.6 / 10.7 / 10.8, and need an updated browser? Here it is. : mac