Amazon High Definition Music Streaming Service

[The Computer Audiophile]

This could be interesting.

 

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/amazon-is-readying-a-hi-def-music-streaming-service/

 

Note: "It’s understood that Amazon has not partnered with MQA for its own HD tier."

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, Jud said:

Interesting is one word for it. If this is seriously going to adhere to standards (huge question), can you see the smaller competitors surviving? Perhaps in Europe, perhaps not. And perhaps it won’t be standards compliant, in which case we’re in real trouble.

I look at it this way: They all have the same trillion tracks, or will soon. The differentiators are user interface, price, algorithms, curation, sound quality. As a behemoth Amazon will go for mass not class. Music is just an accessory for Amazon, not its main thing. As such, this will be obvious to discerning consumers like audiophiles. Does anyone remember Amazon’s push into HiFi with a few high end brands? Didn’t think so. 

 

Behemoths are usually bad for the little guys but perhaps Amazon will make services like Qobuz look that much better. Tidal sure makes Qobuz look like a million bucks. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

With the purchase model an artist gets paid once and I listen as many times as I want with no more money going to the artist. With the streaming model the artist gets paid forever every time I listen. 

 

Sounds like the lottery. Lumps sum but less money now vs payments for the whole winnings over time. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, PAR said:

Eh? A lottery is a game of chance. Royalty payments are defined and, failing payment, legal action may be taken. I don't think any lawyer will take up my action for not winning the Euromillions this weekend 😭

 

Yes, over here in the UK too there is a lottery game where instead of a lump you can be paid a sum monthly for thirty years. At my age I ain't going to be here in thirty years!

 

Anyway my main point is that for very popular artists streaming is an Aladdin's cave. There are, however,  huge problems with specialist genres. I was in conversation with the the chief executive of one of the best known independent classical labels last year. I know some of his costs in producing a single, simple, album ( a piano recital). There is no way that he can recoup his recording costs alone from streaming currently. The outcome is that he currently refuses to licence streaming. However he may not have the option in the USA under the new legislation. This could ultimately mean his company closing as streaming is a direct substitution for sales given the superb quality from e.g. Qobuz.

 

Fortunately no label is forced to offer music for streaming. If specialist genres want to sell products people don't want to buy (physical media) that's up the them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, PAR said:

Unfortunately as far as I can see you are wrong on this. In the USA the new Music Modernization Act provides a compulsory licence i.e. no refusal, no negotiation.

Very interesting. Do you have any links about this?

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, PAP said:

 

Musicians need to stop signing away their rights to make more money. It’s the same as it ever was, but now with streaming. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Think about relative economic power and access to the market. They sign or no one hears them. Someone as hugely popular and talented as Prince saw his sales go down the tubes when he left his label, so how well will an anonymous newcomer do?

I’m with you 100%. But, the choice is there.  Macklemore & Ryan Lewis did it with great success. 

 

It’s all about what artists want. Fame? Money? Control? Freedom? There are different roads to get there. It just rings hollow when artists complain about the decision they made and blame others. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Interesting: "Macklemore, in a slightly unusual recording contract, pays a nominal percentage of sales to use Warner Bros. Records's radio promotion department to push his singles."

It seems opposite of normal where labels pay a nominal percentage to have the artist create history 😁

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

as consumers we might want a setup that encourages a large number of artists to create music

 

you listed 2 who 'made it' under this system, but I'm inclined to agree with Jud that options, while non-zero, are limited

I agree with you and Jud. Options are limited. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Would you give some examples of musicians making good livings in this way?

I've always wondered this, but musicians aren't public companies so the data is sketchy at best. even for the biggest artists the numbers are waaaaay off. When I read Artist XYZ made 120 million touring this summer I always laugh. It's probably 120 million gross ticket sales. Once you subtract the cost of touring with a small city for support and all other expenses, that 120 looks much more like 20. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

P.S. Then divide the 20 by five band members :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, PAR said:

Yes, it's appalling. Each band member in your example only made 4 million this summer from touring . Plus , of course, their other income streams. A  hand to mouth existence. And remember that just like you or me they have to pay their chauffeur, valet, personal cook and flower arranger out of this.

 P.S. take out taxes, so each is down to 2 million. Far from 120 million for the biggest band in the world. How much does the CEO of the biggest corporation in the world make each year? Far more.

 

My example is about the misrepresentation and impossible to find real numbers for what artists make per year, not whether its enough to make a living etc...

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

It's gone live BTW...

Wow.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5fa24c64-d89d-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

[The Computer Audiophile]

Working on details now

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Patrick Cleasby said:

www.amazon.co.uk/HD/Music

I couldn't get that link to work. Here is one that works. If anyone wants to avoid sending us a few pennies they can remove the tag at the end - https://www.amazon.co.uk/music/unlimited/hd?tag=audiophile0bc-20

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, wgscott said:

The player doesn't do automatic sample frequency switching on a Mac OS X system, so if you have this, be sure to set this manually in Audio MIDI Setup.

 

Also, I had to max out the volume on the player software, and in the Preferences, turn off the default "loudness equalization", all of which, I assume, will degrade sound quality.

 

The search/browser functionality is a travesty.

Reminds me of the old iTunes days. Manual sample rate switching. 

 

The only way to use Amazon Music HD is with an integrated solution like BluOS that handles everything for you. The rest is rubbish. I'm working on a video with some thoughts so far. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

I surely hope that those in the audiophile community support the likes of Tidal and Qobuz over Amazon just for the sake of consciousness. A community that regularly discusses the ins and outs of 4, 5, and 6 figure speaker, DACs, cables etc shouldn't then try and save the equivalent of a fancy fuse or dc cable - or to put it in even more real world  perspective - the cost of about twenty five coffees out a year - to save on their music service. I'd rather support Jay-Z or some French entrepreneurs vs Bezos. 

 

FTR we have a family Prime account, use it, and living in Seattle I have numerous friends that work for Amazon, and my wife works for the 'devil' Microsoft, and when you go into the Amazon Music HQ in SF there's a sixteen foot big photograph of mine. So I'm not one of those anti-Amazon crazies, though their sins are well documented. If it ever does get integrated in a way that I could actually use with Roon and my system, I could possibly see it as an addendum to Qobuz, though Hi Res is overrated imo, and just how much time do we actually have to listen to THAT much music? I'm one who actually values silence as well. 

 

I still have plenty of friends who are happy with their old Yamaha or Marantz receivers and buying records by the oodles and playing them on their cheap turntables. A lot of them being musicians themselves. They are the ones who are truly keeping it alive. So stay true and please continue supporting the little guys. Keep the soundstage wide....

Agree Charles. 

 

Also, Qobuz caters to us, and that's worth its weight in gold. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

You know @The Computer Audiophile probably raised his daughter on this album, right?

 

😉

So. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

It doesn't matter how you distribute the money. The $10 per month people are willing to pay is simply not enough for all the artists to make a living, even if a handful are getting rich in the current scheme.

Not everyone deserves to make a living from whatever they wish. Some artist produce content with very little commercial value. Compensation should be commensurate with commercial value. 
 

I’d prefer to make a living doing what I love, listening to great music on a great system and talking about it. Oh wait, I do. However, if everyone who starts a website is guaranteed a living from it, no matter the commercial value, that would a bit over the top. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Very solid points @tmtomh.

 

I just struggle to support the complaining and bitching by artists who voluntarily jump into the fire at the intersection of art and commerce and scream it’s so hot, someone do something to help us. 
 

Nobody forces an artist to sign a record contract, sign his/her rights away, offer his/her art for streaming, or anything they don’t want to do. 
 

The complaining reminds me of a fictional  engineer working for 3M here in Minnesota. He invents the glue for Post It notes then wants more money and complains to the public that Post It notes are so cheap he can’t make enough money. The reality is he went to work for 3M and knew the rules from day 1. 

 

If artists / engineers want to keep all the money, they need to do everything themselves. It’s the same in any business. 
 

I’m sure this sounds harsh, but I’ve just never seen a good argument against it. If you don’t want to play the major label or streaming game, then don’t. Continue to sell whatever you want for whatever price you want. 

I previously used the word “deserve” for lack of a better word. With respect to success or worthiness, that’s also a completely different ball of wax. Art is subjective and should never be judged worthy or successful by one measure. I hate attaching money to any measure of success or worthiness. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, PAP said:

The main part of the money from streaming goes to the publishers not the artist.

 

Sure it goes to the rights holders and that's not the artist in the cases where artists have signed away their rights. Artists like Macklemore who never signed a bad record deal are making out pretty well in the streaming days. rather than a single payment from a purchase, he gets paid every time someone listens. it's a great incentive to create good music and to keep the rights to your recordings. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, PAP said:

Another thing is that if one listens to less than 30 seconds of a song the artist will not get paid his 0.00006 cent.😐

I don't get paid if I do 15% of the job :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, PAP said:

next time at wall mart, take a bite of an apple but don't buy it.

But nobody else will eat it, thus the inventory is gone. Music is quite different. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, PAP said:

Not for Sportify. Only for the artist.

And here is another interesting thing happening;

The-economics-of-streaming-is-changing-pop-songs

Artist who chase the dollar will alter their art to whatever makes them the most money. Not blaming them, it’s just a fact. It’s streaming today, in decades past it was a terrible disco album or even making songs for the MTV era. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, PAP said:

Ok. Good point.

One more and then I'll give up🙂

https://olitunes.com/why-bandcamp-is-the-best-platform-for-independent-musicians/

No need to give up, I enjoy reading your points and they make a lot of sense.