Music’s Biggest Streaming Service is Tone-Deaf
Spotify CEO’s comments spark backlash. Plus, an individual revolution.
"Great poets feel into the future with most sensitive antennas and live out ahead of us a piece of future development, a yet unrealized potential. Poets and philosophers, if they do not sell out to please, but have the courage to be themselves, represent the most precious and dangerous models a culture can have."
-Hermann Hesse (via Poetic Outlaws)
Earlier this summer, in May 2024, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek made a few comments on X that reopened the great debate that is the current state of the music industry. In his opening tweet he stated, “Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life.”
I get asked all the time why I don’t sign a record deal, go on American Idol, or why I don’t move to Nashville, or take more traditional routes with my work. This tweet is a shining example of why.
Why would I give over my art, therefore my soul, to companies like this who clearly don’t even value the artists that are helping them thrive, and who clearly have no understanding of the economic forces at play for musicians?
His comments caught the attention of writer and music historian
, who made his thoughts clear on the matter at his wildly popular Substack, . In response to Ek’s statement, he compared it to pioneering economist Adam Smith’s dismal view of music as an economic good. He said:“Even today, some economists will tell you that music has no economic value.It’s even scarier when people who control our music culture make the same claim. Whenever I hear a tech CEO refer to music as “content,” I can’t help but get reminded of Adam Smith’s condescending view. Judging by what these CEOs pay for songs—only a fraction of a penny per performance—they clearly agree that music is ephemeral and worthless.”
Art Reflects One’s Sense of Life
Music, like all art forms, is directly connected to one’s sense of life. The “WAP” song was #1 on Billboard charts in 2020. People of all ages struggle to identify Vivaldi’s Four Seasons—many probably don’t even know who he is.
But it’s deeper than that. I love classical music. But I certainly don’t think a love of classical music is required to have good taste in music.
Throughout the 20th century, artists were risk-takers. They enacted change in community and culture far more than any politician. While artists validated people’s sense of life, politicians destroyed it.
In the 20th century, artists were trusted arbiters of culture.
However, in the 21st century, it’s politicians.
No wonder we are in such a declining state of music right now. We no longer have musicians who philosophize, we have activists who fancy themselves musicians when the price tag is right (mostly because the activist price tag pays more).
All of these points have led me over the years to become more and more disenfranchised by the very industry of my vocation.
In my early days, when people found out I am a musician and would ask if I’ve got any music they’ve, “Heard on the radio,” I used to politely say probably not, though some radio shows have picked up my group’s music here and there. Then the conversation about the differences between independent musicians and mainstream musicians would ensue. Their eyes would get as big as the moon when I enlightened them on the existence of radio promotion campaigns. Artists with big marketing budgets from record companies end up on regular radio rotation, not indie artists on a budget.
Now, on the rare occasion I’m asked if my music gets played on the radio, I laugh and say, “I wouldn’t know, I don’t listen to it.”
Maybe I’m old school. I do have a lot of old school habits. But the powers that be in the music industry calling music “content” is no good sign for the future.
Like many ancient Greeks’ understanding of the power of music (Gioia also goes into this in his wonderful essay I’ve linked to above), there are a select few today who understand its importance. While Spotify continues to enact policies that suppress independent artists like myself (for instance, songs with less than 1,000 plays don’t even receive any monetary compensation), other platforms use innovation, creativity, and a sound ethical framework to ensure a win-win between artists and their supporters.
This is why I have slacked lately with distributing original new music releases to streaming sites like Spotify. I have to pay up front, and their own monetary practices are stacked against me. Being paid fractions of pennies for streams (once I pass 1,000) means I won’t see an ROI for a while. I’m essentially paying companies to furnish my own demise.
On the other hand, platforms like Substack are built on virtuous grounds. Those in charge understand the importance of art and the role it plays in validating our sense of life. They also understand artistic autonomy, artistic risk-taking, and artistic experimentation. They understand it because they too are artists, and I believe they are currently building the most important artistic and cultural development of our current time.
This is why I have been exclusively releasing music, and content, on my own Substack publication for the last year.
I’m able to do things, in the words of the great Frank Sinatra, My way.
And supporters are able to not only compensate me for the music, writing, and art I create, but a relationship is built between us based on similar values.
Streaming sites and social media produce toxic environments, where real faces and names are relegated to the back burner for disruptive ads, random page suggestions, horrifying arguments, and bots.
People often spend all day on these sites and never make one single, quality human connection.
Substack has solved that. They’ve put the humanities back into the arts, and the two should have never been severed from one another in the first place.
I’m not the only artist that feels this way.
Reducing the Value of Art
Ek’s comments sparked a lot of outrage, from fans and artists alike.
Many were especially shocked at Ek’s calling music “content,” which earned him the title of “grifter” by an X user. Others called him out for championing an environment that focuses on a constant stream of content, which forces both artists and listeners to choose quantity over quality, thus reducing the value of art.
Music journalist James Thornhill stated, “Making music costs – time, skills, studio time, mastering. This guy is totally out of touch.”
The “out of touch” gatekeepers of the music industry, like executives at Spotify and other streaming sites, have even received criticism from some of music’s formidable names, like rock band Nine Inch Nails’ frontman Trent Reznor. Regarding the state of the music industry, he said that streaming services have “mortally wounded” musicians.
Some working musicians who’ve experienced a moderate amount of mainstream success agree with Reznor’s comments. Murray Matravers, who heads up the group Hard Life (formerly known as Easy Life—a proper name change given his forthcoming quote), remarked, “I assumed as a naive young man that if we got to where we are now then I would be really, really rich...That’s just not the case sadly. I just want to see artists getting paid for selling records. Wouldn’t that be good? That would be a good place to start.”
Even Ek’s own comments don’t add up. While he touts the success of Spotify across social media, with a record profit of more than 1 billion euros, the company has recently laid off staff multiple times, including a 17% cut, then another 6% cut in 2023. This comes at a time when subscription prices for the company continue to rise as well. The reason for increased prices? In an official statement, Spotify blamed “changing market conditions.”
Independent artists like myself cannot afford to be that vague about the state of our businesses.
While it is understandable that many who are not in the business of the arts haven’t put much thought into its economic value, or value at all, it is inexcusable that those in charge of delivering music to consumers view it simply as “content”—content that has a better value as a short shelf-life product than a long-term one.
This is my opinion, and it’s an unpopular one (I have many of those): Musicians, myself included, who continue to hand over our products to gatekeepers who have no understanding of its value, or how that value is fostered by the relationship between listener and musician, are also acting in an inexcusable manner.
Why should we have to get approval of our work from those in powerful positions? Art should first and foremost be created for the self. Then, hopefully, people like it. The music business should be set up in such a way that music goes from creator to consumer in the most streamlined way possible. When a hierarchy exists in the music industry that mimics a government bureaucracy, which is what we have now, an artistic dark age sets in.
This is why I’ve focused so much on my work at Substack these past several months.
Individual Revolution
The issue, then, doesn’t boil down to independent artists versus mainstream artists. For years, that was the battle line drawn. What it really boils down to is the philosophical state of artists themselves.
If you look at enduring artists whose works have stood the test of time, from Beethoven to Freddie Mercury, these musicians were fighters. And, much like today, they were fighters up against insurmountable odds.
Along with the gradual loss of his hearing, Beethoven faced ridicule, doubt, and criticism. His biography is called Anguish and Triumph for a reason. Mercury fought hard for “Bohemian Rhapsody” to be released as a single, much to the dismay of their all-powerful label.
Now, musicians are far too often yes-men. They roll over in a heartbeat for their label. They’ve gone completely corporate, touting everything from shots to energy drinks for cash for their label and themselves on their social media platforms.
I’m not saying this was never the case. A certain number of celebrities who reach sky-high success often willingly become pawns for cultural games. Many remember the Fyre Festival fiasco of 2017, when some of the world’s most popular celebrities and artists were duped into promoting a fraudulent large-scale entertainment event on their social channels.
But while those types of musicians have always existed, before, there was a plethora of others who refused to be anything but themselves, and that’s why they remain so treasured.
Authenticity and artistic immortality go hand in hand.
The music industry used to be full of pit bulls. Now, it's teeming with lap dogs.
I don’t say all this to come to some nihilistic conclusion though. I’ve been a part of a subtle, under the radar artistic resistance for too long now.
And it’s not the type of Hollywood resistance that makes anarchy look cool (though the Sex Pistols did manage to do that for a bit). It’s more along the lines of the poet Charles Bukowski, who amid all his faults, self-loathing, and attempts at escapism through endless bottles of spirits, brilliantly said, “It's when you begin to lie to yourself in a poem in order to simply make a poem, that you fail.”
That’s really what the artistic revolution embodies now, the antithesis of who Bukowski is referencing in this quote. We’re a small, mighty few artists—writers, musicians, and poets—who refuse to lie to ourselves. Therefore, we refuse to lie to you.
And with that being said, I must say one more thing. Taking in all this context, I’m a walking miracle. I have somehow, in an age obsessed with video, found ways to make money writing words. In an age obsessed with the constant stream of digital content… I mean, music, I have made a living performing both my own music and other people’s for countless shows so I don’t have to rely on streaming “income” (though I’m appreciative of anyone who does take the time to check out our music on these platforms).
While I’m part of an artistic revolution, I have my own individual revolution as well.
And if I could be a walking billboard for anything, it would be this, which my artistic career was, is, and always will be representative of:
People still pay for the truth.
Want to show your support but not quite ready for a membership? Hit the Classically Cultured tip jar via this link and buy me a coffee so the words and music keep flowing. Thank you in advance!
What an inspiration you are! You have fought against the odds. Your analysis of platforms and gatekeepers is spot on. I was unaware of Adam Smith's contemptuous (and contemptible) opinions about music.
I feel myself to be in a similar situation, as a writer of free "content," but you've found a way to make a living out of it. I self-published a book on Amazon and sold about 130 copies. :-( I am working on another book, and this time I plan to promote it better, perhaps getting a "real" publisher. We'll see.
Have you thought of using Patreon on YouTube in addition to substack payments? Just an idea....