Why is Streaming So Bad for Artists?

Since uploading my new album Live at HippoSonic Studios exclusively to Bandcamp last month, I have been getting lots of questions like: “Why didn’t you upload your album to streaming platforms?” and subsequently after I explain my reasoning, “Why is streaming so bad for artists?”

Given these questions, I wanted to spend a little time outlining the challenges musicians (particularly independent musicians) and music appreciators face in the era of streaming. 

Before I go any further, I want to take a moment to acknowledge that most of these ideas are summaries of my favourite parts of Liz Pelly’s book, Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Cost of the Perfect Playlist. Pelly is a music journalist based in New York who spent years researching and interviewing employees of Spotify and industry professionals to craft her book. I highly recommend that you read it, but in case you don’t, I wanted to take the opportunity to summarize these key points that really stuck out to me in her work. This list is in no way exhaustive, but hopefully it provides some clarity for those who are unaware and some talking points for those who are trying to explain to others what we’re dealing with here.

I also want to take a moment to highlight that, while many of these points focus on issues with Spotify, streaming as a whole is the problem. Much of the current discourse about streaming services has been fixated on Spotify because their CEO, Daniel Ek, recently invested in AI weapons; musicians have been pulling their music from Spotify and listeners have been moving to other streaming services like Apple Music or Tidal. While Pelly’s book and popular discourse focus on Spotify, I firmly believe that all streaming services are similarly harmful (you can’t tell me Apple or Amazon is more ethical than Spotify).

Why Is Streaming So Bad for Artists? 

There are many ways in which the streaming industry is harmful to artists. The points I explore below include poor pay for artists, the false notion of “meritocracy” promoted by the platforms, and the erosion of artistry and deep listening. I conclude with some resources to check out for further learning.

Poor Pay for Artists

The most talked about issue with streaming services is the insultingly low payouts to artists. Spotify famously only pays about ⅓ of a cent per stream, and that’s only if your track is streamed over 1000 times in a year. People often think other platforms like Apple Music or Tidal are better because they pay artists more per stream (artists on Apple Music and Tidal earn roughly 1 cent per stream). While currently, it is technically true that other platforms pay more than Spotify, the notion that they ‘pay better’ is a bit of a fallacy because all streaming platforms use the same equation to calculate artist payouts; Apple Music and Tidal only pay artists more because they have fewer users than Spotify. To put it simply, if everyone switched away from Spotify to other platforms, artists would start to make less per stream from those other platforms and potentially more from their Spotify streams. So it’s not really about which platform is paying artists better, it’s about the lack of policy and intention to meaningfully compensate artists for their work that is making these companies millions of dollars

The False “Meritocracy” (Somewhat Spotify-specific)

Streaming services - Spotify in particular - have managed to very effectively promote the idea that “anyone can make it” on their platforms. In reality, this is not true. The three major labels - SONY, Warner, and Universal - have all had major financial stakes in and therefore influence over Spotify. This power gives these major labels the ability to push their major artists on the platform. While Spotify claims that they do not give priority to artists for any reason other than musical quality (such as on Spotify editorial playlists or algorithmic listening), that’s simply just a lie. Major label artists are prioritized over the rest.

Spotify pushes its own content

Related to the above point, is that Spotify also generates its own music, which it pushes on playlists so that it can make money off of its own streams. At first, Spotify did this by hiring “ghost writers” or musicians who are hired to create cookie-cutter songs that Spotify owns the rights to and can pump out on its playlists (e.g. a jazz artist plays a standard instrumental bossa nova tune, and Spotify puts it on a ‘Jazz for Studying’ playlist). As people stream this playlist, Spotify earns revenue from its own songs and the artist who actually performed the track makes very little money. Furthermore, the artist’s name is not put on the song (hence the term ‘ghost’) and so the ghost writer does not even get recognition for the work.

Worse still is the introduction of AI music. Now Spotify doesn’t even need to pay ghost writers at all. They can just generate AI music and make money. 

The more that Spotify makes money from its own tracks, the less money there is in the pot for other artists to earn.

The Erosion of Creativity, Innovation and Deep Listening

Spotify has also begun to erode creative artistry for musicians and deep listening for music consumers. Spotify makes more money the longer you listen to music on their platform. This means that Spotify wants its algorithms to feed you music that keeps you listening. And so, Spotify has created a culture of listening to background music - playlists for studying, meditation, or sleeping. In Mood Machine, Pelly quotes Spotify co-founder, Daniel Ek, as saying “the other streaming platforms are not our competitors. Our competitor is silence.” (Um, freaky)

In order for people to constantly be listening to music, the music can’t be too intense. It has to be palatable and inoffensive. It has to slide into the background, almost as if it's not there. This means the songs that get the most streams on Spotify are songs that function as background music. And since Spotify has cultivated a culture where artists are constantly trying to up their streams, this system encourages artists to make inoffensive, cookie cutter music that could fade into the background, rather than music that is interesting, makes you stop in your tracks and listen. It also encourages artists to make shorter songs that people want to stream multiple times.

As an artist who has music on Spotify (I am considering removing it), I have also experienced the unhealthy culture that stream counts foster. Artists are constantly checking their streaming numbers, comparing themselves to others, and trying to boost those numbers to appear legitimate to industry, to try and make at least some money, and to try and feel better about their music. But in my experience, no matter how many streams I have on a song, it’s the one person who comes up to me after a show to tell me how much they liked my song that actually means something to me. By encouraging artists to track and boost their streams, Spotify is taking the heart and soul out of how musicians connect with their own music and fans, and profiting from it.

From a listener perspective, this focus on background music is also harmful. It encourages listeners to just put music on in the background rather than deeply engaging with the art. It fits into the capitalist mold that we need to be productive at all times and music is a means to do something else, rather than an activity in and of itself.

Conclusion

There you have it! These are just a few of many reasons that Spotify and the streaming industry are harmful to musicians and listeners alike. I have been heartened to see more and more artists and music listeners discussing the issues with streaming services over the last year and look forward to seeing a new era emerge of artists who are fairly paid for their labour, and listeners who deeply engage with and financially support the musicians they love.

I would love to talk more about this, debate, answer questions, and dream about alternative possibilities. Message me anytime to discuss.

Additional Resources

Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Cost of the Perfect Playlist by Liz Pelly

UMAW: United Musicians and Allied Workers

Subvert (Online Music Marketplace collectively owned by artists and independent labels)

Honestly, just search “Why is streaming so bad for artists?” online and you’ll get countless academic papers, news articles, videos, and reddit threads that explain these issues in greater detail.

Up Next:

I kind of like this newsletter blog idea. Hopefully, I have the stamina to keep it going. Stay tuned for my November newsletter which will include a blog post about the possibilities of co-operative ownership in the music industry.