I think it's a little weird to only focus on Spotify. Kinda just seems like you're following another trend. If ANY of the streaming services were better [as in: not just 3/100ths of cent per stream more], everyone would just leave Spotify — or just consider it a bonus because the bulk of their money comes from a different streaming service (and therefor wouldn't have much to complain about in the first place). But... this isn't the case because they're ALL like this. Singling one out is kinda sus.
YouTube = $0.001 - $0.003
Spotify = $0.003 - $0.005
Apple Music = $0.006 - $0.008
Tidal = $0.0125 - $0.015
Amazon Music = $0.004 - $0.007
Deezer = $0.005 - $0.007
Napster = $0.019 - $0.021
Napster has the highest earning potential, but I never hear people urging artists to get fans to listen there. But even then, it's a difference of <drum roll, please> $0.016... not even a quarter of a cent. Sooo... what makes Spotify so much worse?
Hey NUK. Thanks for being here. I focused on Spotify for this piece because of the wrapped phenomenon and because Spotify occupies the vast majority of the American streaming market share. None of the streamers are good, but Spotify is not only among the worst, but also the largest.
I have written pretty regularly on the issue and also taken shots at other digital outlets like Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others. The issue is the system of streaming all of recorded music for one low price a month with no other investment from the audience. I have a piece coming on Monday that looks at five ideas to help begin to address the issue. I hope you'll check it out.
I'm of two minds on this. First, there is absolutely no question that artists (musicians, writers, etc.) deserve to be paid more/fairly for their work. And you're also right that Web 2.0 infected society with a sense of entitlement.
Where I think a lot of the hot takes get it wrong is the assumption that if Spotify (or wherever) disappeared, that we'd all go back to buying physical media. We wouldn't. You and I might, but we're outliers in the grand scheme of things. In my teens/20's, most of my income went to records and shows, but even that represented only a fraction of what I was listening to. The rest either came from the radio or mixtapes I traded with friends. It's that latter part that Spotify & co. have replaced for most people. For Gen Z, being digitally native has meant they really don't know anything else. They still make mixtapes for one another, they just call them playlists now.
I don't have a pat answer here. I wish I did. In the absence of systemic change, I think the best path is to use streaming as one of many discovery tools, but rely more on recommendations from friends or communities like this one. When it comes time to buy, do it either directly from the artist, somewhere like Bandcamp (for now??), or your locally owned store. If your favorite band comes through town, get a ticket!
No one has a one size fits all answer for this one, Kev. It's a messy and difficult issue. I think education of the issue is the paramount thing. It's a labor issue and we should treat it as such.
We need to find ways for artists to get paid more for their work on digital streamers, and we need to set up legislation with fair royalty rates like we did for radio 70 years ago. Physical media is dead except as a luxury item, and that is really okay. We just have to find a new way to pay artists.
I’ve been putting off canceling Spotify for way too long. As of today we are officially off of Spotify. We will no longer treat music as a free commodity.
We have had our discussions on Spotify in the past and I won't dive in deep into them, but I do always appreciate your thorough breakdowns in the problem with this technology. I agree it's flawed. I always trace the problem back to the launch of iTunes, when Apple decided that individual songs were meant to be chopped off from the album and valued at a fraction of the cost. This fundamentally changed the way we looked at music, and while it may not have been the first trchnological blow to the industry, I think it set the most dangerous precedent and led us to where we are now.
I appreciate the focus of your ire given to Spotify as a company and not to the consumers, many of whom I have faith (perhaps blindly?) would spend more money directly on music given an economy and homeownership/space to do so. Right now, the physical music I do buy goes directly into the storage unit with the rest of my physical media, which is... not a feeling that motivates me to want to buy more, but I am hopeful for some turns of wealth in the next year.
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Ben. I am really glad you enjoyed the article.
The inception of iTunes, along with Napster really opened the floodgates for sure. I would argue that it had much more to do with the convenience of any and all music at the drop of a proverbial hat that changed the game. Singles were the preferred method of listening for young people throughout the beginning of the rock and roll era. I am an album guy, but I think there was a culture for buying and ingesting one song at a time with 45s and technology like the radio.
To my mind, the largest issue is that the world has now become inured to the idea that they are entitled to have the sum total of recorded music in the pocket at all times. Frankly, that sense of entitlement, at any price, is the major issue as I see it. Spotify and Apple certainly exploited that entitlement and then placed a price tag on it. The trouble is that none of the people making the product are involved in any of the economic structure at all. In fact, they are mostly treated like cattle within the system.
Until we can legislate fair rates of pay for digital streams, this will continue to get worse and the quality of our music will suffer because of it.
I think it's a little weird to only focus on Spotify. Kinda just seems like you're following another trend. If ANY of the streaming services were better [as in: not just 3/100ths of cent per stream more], everyone would just leave Spotify — or just consider it a bonus because the bulk of their money comes from a different streaming service (and therefor wouldn't have much to complain about in the first place). But... this isn't the case because they're ALL like this. Singling one out is kinda sus.
YouTube = $0.001 - $0.003
Spotify = $0.003 - $0.005
Apple Music = $0.006 - $0.008
Tidal = $0.0125 - $0.015
Amazon Music = $0.004 - $0.007
Deezer = $0.005 - $0.007
Napster = $0.019 - $0.021
Napster has the highest earning potential, but I never hear people urging artists to get fans to listen there. But even then, it's a difference of <drum roll, please> $0.016... not even a quarter of a cent. Sooo... what makes Spotify so much worse?
Hey NUK. Thanks for being here. I focused on Spotify for this piece because of the wrapped phenomenon and because Spotify occupies the vast majority of the American streaming market share. None of the streamers are good, but Spotify is not only among the worst, but also the largest.
I have written pretty regularly on the issue and also taken shots at other digital outlets like Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others. The issue is the system of streaming all of recorded music for one low price a month with no other investment from the audience. I have a piece coming on Monday that looks at five ideas to help begin to address the issue. I hope you'll check it out.
I'm of two minds on this. First, there is absolutely no question that artists (musicians, writers, etc.) deserve to be paid more/fairly for their work. And you're also right that Web 2.0 infected society with a sense of entitlement.
Where I think a lot of the hot takes get it wrong is the assumption that if Spotify (or wherever) disappeared, that we'd all go back to buying physical media. We wouldn't. You and I might, but we're outliers in the grand scheme of things. In my teens/20's, most of my income went to records and shows, but even that represented only a fraction of what I was listening to. The rest either came from the radio or mixtapes I traded with friends. It's that latter part that Spotify & co. have replaced for most people. For Gen Z, being digitally native has meant they really don't know anything else. They still make mixtapes for one another, they just call them playlists now.
I don't have a pat answer here. I wish I did. In the absence of systemic change, I think the best path is to use streaming as one of many discovery tools, but rely more on recommendations from friends or communities like this one. When it comes time to buy, do it either directly from the artist, somewhere like Bandcamp (for now??), or your locally owned store. If your favorite band comes through town, get a ticket!
No one has a one size fits all answer for this one, Kev. It's a messy and difficult issue. I think education of the issue is the paramount thing. It's a labor issue and we should treat it as such.
We need to find ways for artists to get paid more for their work on digital streamers, and we need to set up legislation with fair royalty rates like we did for radio 70 years ago. Physical media is dead except as a luxury item, and that is really okay. We just have to find a new way to pay artists.
I’ve been putting off canceling Spotify for way too long. As of today we are officially off of Spotify. We will no longer treat music as a free commodity.
We have had our discussions on Spotify in the past and I won't dive in deep into them, but I do always appreciate your thorough breakdowns in the problem with this technology. I agree it's flawed. I always trace the problem back to the launch of iTunes, when Apple decided that individual songs were meant to be chopped off from the album and valued at a fraction of the cost. This fundamentally changed the way we looked at music, and while it may not have been the first trchnological blow to the industry, I think it set the most dangerous precedent and led us to where we are now.
I appreciate the focus of your ire given to Spotify as a company and not to the consumers, many of whom I have faith (perhaps blindly?) would spend more money directly on music given an economy and homeownership/space to do so. Right now, the physical music I do buy goes directly into the storage unit with the rest of my physical media, which is... not a feeling that motivates me to want to buy more, but I am hopeful for some turns of wealth in the next year.
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Ben. I am really glad you enjoyed the article.
The inception of iTunes, along with Napster really opened the floodgates for sure. I would argue that it had much more to do with the convenience of any and all music at the drop of a proverbial hat that changed the game. Singles were the preferred method of listening for young people throughout the beginning of the rock and roll era. I am an album guy, but I think there was a culture for buying and ingesting one song at a time with 45s and technology like the radio.
To my mind, the largest issue is that the world has now become inured to the idea that they are entitled to have the sum total of recorded music in the pocket at all times. Frankly, that sense of entitlement, at any price, is the major issue as I see it. Spotify and Apple certainly exploited that entitlement and then placed a price tag on it. The trouble is that none of the people making the product are involved in any of the economic structure at all. In fact, they are mostly treated like cattle within the system.
Until we can legislate fair rates of pay for digital streams, this will continue to get worse and the quality of our music will suffer because of it.