-
Tidal could be better for the artists but I doubt there's much in it. The contracts are negotiated by the same teams at the rights holders and often the legal people at the streaming services float around between them, it's unlikely that they're going to have negotiated completely new metrics for payment.
The whole pay per stream things gets mentioned a lot as it's easy for most people to understand and then it's perpetuated because some rights holders display the earnings on the artist royalty statement on a per stream basis, which the artists then share online so everyone thinks that the simple pay-per-stream is how it's calculated.
I have no affiliation to Spotify, though do have some insight into the deals they struck when launching. They actually give away a higher % of their revenues than other services, they just have a lot of streams per month so it makes the value look lower.
Obviously go for whichever streaming service you like the most but it would be very difficult for Spotify to do anything to change that chart without negatively impacting the service they offer (be that having to charge more, get rid of the ad-funded users if they still have them, sack off some people that work there etc...).
You are reading a single comment by @Lw. and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Lw.
That may be so, but I've not read anything to suggest Tidal isn't better for artists than Spotify.
I'm all ears though. I have no emotional attachment to either, and if Spotify is comparable in renumeration, for me it would be slightly better from a user experience point of view, once it goes to hifi streaming.