MQA is Vaporware

[Jud]

"afraid" is not the word. Have a look at this link. The internet is overflowing with hidden agendas and false flags.

 

Dear Lord, your world sounds like Hunter S. Thompson's description of the music business. (Look it up, it's well worth it.)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

So, "MQA Is Vaporware" is clearly not the case. What are your thoughts on MQA and Tidal?

 

Do you think that Tidal HiFi subscribers are getting a benefit now that they can stream hi-res? Or do you see a potential downside?

 

Well, they could stream hi-res in non-proprietary forms, which would have been my preference. The music business, I think we can agree, has a pretty clumsy history regarding trying to keep folks from getting hold of unfettered digital formats (hi-res PCM, DSD) in the process of pushing stuff they can own (SACD, the best quality of MQA decoding). Historically I think this has held back public exposure to, and adoption of, various hi-res formats (DSD in particular- think how long Sony tried to maintain a death grip on that).

 

So yeah, reasonable people could be legitimately concerned.

 

Can't see any reason to go full Area 51 conspiracy-theory on this, though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

Streaming in hi-res non-proprietary formats is coming from Pandora, Rhapsody, Pono, and others.

 

My question is - what basis do people have in thinking that MQA will be the *only* hi-res format?

 

Which had better video quality - Beta or VHS?

 

So that would be the problem, if MQA experiences sufficient success to drive others out of the market. On that score, I would be less concerned about Tidal out-competing rivals than about the labels deciding to throw their support (in the form of contracts with streaming companies) behind the format they believe allows them to control access to the best quality version.

 

It's very early days, and none of this is close to happening, but that I suppose would be the "doomsday scenario."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

I think you are looking at this from an "audiophile" perspective (no offense meant). By that I mean there's no way that MQA will make inroads from 'the bottom up'. Tidal, which I love and would not want to live without, is a small player in the streaming market. Pandora and Rhapsody are big.

 

Since Pandora and Rhapsody are moving into hi-res streaming, I think we have to accept the fact that they have done their market research to a greater extent than anyone on any audio forum.

 

Certainly hope you're right.

 

Edit: Of course Apple could change all this tomorrow. Let's hope those 24/96 iTunes masters are what they'll roll out if this happens.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

I'm simply reporting.

 

I completely agree that this is the current situation, and regarding other streaming companies' market projections. Of course none of us knows the future with certainty. All we can do is work for the one we want.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

What can we do to work for the future we want in this regard?

 

Vote with our dollars and hope that works; try to convince labels that historically, open sales have worked better *for the labels* than tight control. (Apple saved the music industry against its will by giving the public the convenient purchase of individual hits they wanted. Industry execs have subsequently been quoted saying they won't make that "mistake" again, so I'm dubious about the ability to show the labels where their best interests actually lie.)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

Thanks for that.

 

I have to admit that I have no interest in the music released by the 3 majors. I'd imagine most audiophiles, demographically speaking, have no interest in new music from the big 3 either.

 

Their "war chest" has been fitfully looted - how many more reissues of "Kind Of Blue" does anyone need - so my thoughts are that the concern here is more altruistic.

 

So no interest, for example, in The Beatles in 24/96 or 24/192? Warner artists Aretha Franklin, Bela Fleck, Arvo Part, Led Zeppelin, Mark Knopfler, Prince, Regina Spektor, Sturgill Simpson, Tori Amos, Van Morrison, Wiz Khalifa, Megadeth ( )?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

I'm good with all of the music by people who are no longer making music. I buy Sturgill's LPs.

 

On this we feel differently, even though I own and use a turntable (for my old record collection - I don't buy new vinyl). Mark Knopfler and Bela Fleck are still making music I want to listen to. I also can't predict the majors won't have any future rock, jazz, classical, c&w, world, folk, trance, etc., music I might want to hear. (Though there was plenty of indie music from Bandcamp and other sites in the past year that I loved.). So I can't be sanguine at the thought of such a possibility.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

Sure. As "Tom" pointed out, I do listen to music that is released by the big 3. The thing is it's a tiny % of the music I enjoy and it's all available through Tidal.

 

Well that was a great big circle.

 

Again we have to (politely) disagree:

 

- All the music I like isn't available on Tidal. It's why I dropped the service.

 

- If it is available on Tidal, we're back to the problem that I don't want Tidal and the other services to eventually standardize on MQA and crowd current hi-res formats out of the market.

 

So we (politely and in a friendly, reasonable, conversational way) differ in our views on this, which is fine. As "my people" might say, "You should live and be well."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

VHS had porn. Betamax didn't.

 

You never saw the Betamax classic, "Mr. Ed Meets Catherine the Great"?

[Jud]

That's still not vaporware.

 

I do believe that may have been mansr's point, unless I misunderstand him (which is entirely possible).

[Jud]

It could be considered the architectural equivalent of the loudness wars!

 

Points for creative analogy!

[Jud]

57 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Don't worry, they'll all be gone soon from MQA streamers and probably the downloaders like HDTracks too.

 

Any actual plans regarding contractual arrangements between the industry and the vendors who supply HDT etc. that you can point to?

 

Otherwise, not saying this can't or won't happen, but let's not take it as proved just yet.

 

I also have a hard time seeing why the industry would have bothered to help create a hi res download industry and then destroy it, for what, exactly?  It isn't like they're bleeding massive amounts of revenue from piracy in this tiny niche area of their operations.

[Jud]

12 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

The history of double inventory stocking isn't on the side of continued availability but we shall see. 78, LP, 8 track, cassettes, reel 2 reel, now even CD get displaced by the new tech when their time comes.  I don't see someone like Tidal continuing to offer a stream of any one album in lossless flac 16/44, and a MQA encoded file which will offer the same (undecoded) thing to everyone except the few of us that care about such things. If they do for the short term it is only because they'll be charging extra for MQA?  I don't know, are they? .

 

Makes sense re Tidal, but they're a tiny fraction of the streaming market.  And there are of course also downloads, entirely apart from the streaming market.

[Jud]

40 minutes ago, fung0 said:

But there's a good chance that they will - especially if the music industry gets behind them with a remarkably unified push. We all know that's exactly the logic that's applied in industry boardrooms.

 

Glad "we all" have telepathic or precognitive powers to know this, since public announcements from other companies at CES this year appeared to indicate hi-res streaming competition for MQA rather than unification behind it.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, fung0 said:

There's very little telepathy required. Part of it is direct observation: I've been working in and around this field for a lot of years; I've met quite a few execs and visited a fair number of boardrooms. Part of it is just paying attention: reading the relevant press. None of my examples are secret, nor are the industry attitudes behind them.

 

 

About past practice and general tendencies I surely agree.  But perhaps when thinking about what the industry is going to do regarding something as specific as MQA streaming, we might include their announced plans in our consideration.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Mansr,

I always forget if you aren’t an American you may not know our recording industry is still operating under a Consent Decree that has been in place since 1941. Last year the terms were tightened. Your tiger has been in the crosshairs of a .375 Holland & Holland a long time. Because of this it is in every Americans DNA to distrust record companies.

 

There is a reason I called MQA vaporware. Until there are 10,000 albums the format does not matter. At that point other discussions take place until 1% of say Tidal tracks are MQA. This is a number higher than all the current hi-res albums by a factor of three. Then we can have discussion about whether MQA can reach critical mass. I’m defining critical mass as the minimum amount of albums needed to have a viable streaming service that will allow providers to charge more than CD quality. We are about a quarter of the way from even starting a conversation about commercial viability.

 

Finally Steve Miller’s rant was the sugar coated version of what the recording is. Anyone believes anything else is gullible or in the industry.

 

These days, if there is something the entertainment industry doesn't like about the consent decree, I can't see great difficulty getting the underlying law changed.  The industry got its own beloved version of a copyright law passed, so I'm not sure a lot else is beyond it (as long as NBC hasn't PO'd the Big Man beforehand).

 

But that's at a 30,000-foot level.  Right now, MQA hasn't even succeeded in showing elementary commercial viability for one minor player in one segment of the music industry, let alone become top of mind for entertainment conglomerate executives as a must-have.  So let's (1) continue to vote with our dollars, and urge the companies we deal with to do the same; (2) support true hi res streaming when and if it happens; and (3) continue to be informed consumers of true hi res downloads (chances the Pono Store comes back, anyone?).

[Jud]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

 

Is that a hungry tiger stalking us? Let's wait and see what he does. Maybe he just wants a cuddle.

 

My strategy would be not to feed the tiger cub, rather than wasting energy hollering "Look, a huge, horrible tiger!" at people who can see it plainly isn't, yet, and will therefore tend to discount what you say rather than taking action.

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I just don't believe there's room in the marketplace for another store.

 

Really?  I used to price shop between them, HDTracks, and a couple of others, and the Pono Store would often have the best price.  So I miss them at least for that.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I don't have any knowledge here either, but my guess is the same as yours. 

 

It could also be different than sharing royalties.  Since the industry has much greater economic bargaining power than MQA, a payment stream that doesn't depend on royalties could have been negotiated (unless MQA balked, but could/would they?).

[Jud]

39 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

If it's mainly about money, that money is for whomever owns the rights. If an artist sold his sole to the label devil, then the label gets the money. If the artist kept the rights, then the money is for them. 

 

Labels have always screwed artists. Artists have always known this. Yet, they continue to sign away their rights and income.

 

Big company says to struggling artist "Sign here to get paid and get heard."  How many have had the leverage to say no?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I don't think it's about leverage. It's about taking the easy or hard way. Signing a contract for another company to pay for everything and do everything for you is easy. Grass roots is hard, but the payback is larger. I don't make judgements either way. People can run their own business or work for someone else. Pros and cons to each decision. 

 

Isn't saying a particular way is the hard way a lot like saying one party has more bargaining leverage?   Otherwise one party couldn't say to the other, "My way or the hard way."  It isn't a negotiation between equals, so the more powerful one can say "Take it or leave it."

 

To provide an analogy: I've negotiated a settlement between a  (civil) client and the federal government.  It is nothing like negotiating with a private party, because the government has essentially unlimited funds and time, something very seldom true of a private party.

[Jud]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I see it a bit differently. 

 

It's a business decision for an artist to hire a full service company to handle everything or do it themselves. Labels are trying to woo artists into signing. The artist has the goods the labels want to sell. 

 

 

 

Yes, there's no doubt the label wants the artist, or there would be no contract talk, even of the "Take it or leave it" variety.

 

But not signing over publishing makes the artist less valuable to the company.  At that point the company can far better afford to stick to its position than the artist can (with vanishingly few exceptions for the most popular artists).  Sure the artist can say no, if he or she wants to remain poor and unappreciated.  Some people will, but the consequences for them are more significant than for the company.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Interesting the way they count 'album' sales since 2014.  A CD purchase or a downloaded album purchase is one album sale.  10 single track purchases is one album sale.  1500 streams is one album sale.  I think there was only one title that actually sold 1 million CDs and full album downloads last year.  That was Adele's album which she didn't let anyone stream initially.  Drake had the highest total 'album sale units' at 4 million.  In 1999 several musical groups sold 15 million actual CDs. 

 

So for inflation adjusted income the top artists make about 1/4th or 1/5th the money they once did on recordings.  The industry as a whole might be down to around 50% for recording income inflation adjusted.  It was lower a few years ago as music recording income has been rising a bit.  All this is not as bad as it sounds.  Both in 1999 and 2016 artists made more money doing tours and endorsement deals.  The recordings are really just part of the marketing.

 

Drake made about $60 million last year and Adele $80 million.

 

Wonder what the contracts look like for tour dollars vs. music sales.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Looking at a few sources and for say the top ten acts of recent years it appears touring money is 80-95% of an artist's income.  The line can be blurry for artists with endorsements as endorsing companies are sometimes involved in the tours.  Clearly from data available touring is overwhelmingly where the money is.

 

Here is one page with it clearly laid out though I can't know they are the most accurate.  It fits with other sources in general. 

 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/list/7356755/billboard-top-40-money-makers-rich-list

 

Taylor Swift is listed with $61.7 million touring.  $4.1 million publishing.  $7.2 million in sales and $564k for streaming.

 

Adele is unusual as she made $16 million in sales and $0 touring in 2015.  But she started off the following year with a tour which netted most of her $60 million. 

 

Sorry I wasn't more clear - what I was wondering was what the contract provisions with a label might be for money made from tours.  The top acts may get sponsorship, but I'm wondering about middle and lower tier folks.  I'm curious whether it's a common arrangement for the labels to put up money for these acts to tour and get paid back from a cut of the proceeds, or are the contracts more commonly between the artists and promoters who run the venues?