Something is rotten in Denmark... Or Sweden. Sweden, the birthplace of music's hegemonic power, Spotify. With all the talk of the entertainment industry focused on the WGA and SAG strike recently, musicians have been doing a lot of "what about us?"-ing on social media. Musicians of all stripes are wondering why we can't get a better deal than the $0.003 per stream offered by Spotify.
But that's not what I'm wondering. Spotify has made it pretty clear they're not interested in negotiating or giving musicians fair pay. Their business model relies on their stock price, not on the revenue they make from music, which is why they tried pivoting to podcasts and throwing an obscene amount of money at Joe Rogan. The question I've been asking is, why aren't there any interesting innovations happening in how people listen to music. Fast Company has a list of the top innovators in the music industry for 2023. There are a bunch of companies working on incorporating AI or social media into music production and consumption, or working on payment processing, but no one is trying to offer a compelling alternative to the all-you-can-stream platforms like Spotify and Apple. In my own "small sample size" experience, people only use Spotify with a small minority using Apple (me). I have never personally met anyone using Tidal, Deezer, Amazon Music, Google Play, or any other players in the streaming game. That holds up when looking at the numbers. Spotify has 31% market share, while Apple is running a distant second with 15%. None of the competitors seem to be offering anything unique that would entice someone to break from Spotify. The one exception is Bandcamp, which is not a subscription-based streaming platform, but an online store where you can buy digital albums, vinyl, and merch. The artist also gets a lot more of the money, and on designated days called Bandcamp Friday, they get all the money. Bandcamp seems to be most popular amongst musicians who don’t want to feed the Spotify beast.
With unlimited streaming, the value of music has been cheapened. An algorithm makes a playlist for you that suits your mood, helps you focus on your work, or livens up your party. But do you know what songs you’re listening to? Which artist is it? It's wallpaper. I’ve observed a change in my listening habits that make me guilty of devaluing music too. I might get excited about an upcoming release by one of my favorite artists. The release date arrives, I hit the little plus sign to add it to my library, and then maybe I listen to it once, or I don't even listen to it at all. I didn't physically go out and get it at the record store, I didn't spend any money on it. It's one album in a collection of thousands that only cost me $9/month to amass.
Recently, I was listening to Rick Rubin's podcast "Tetragrammaton", because he had Trent Reznor on as a guest. They were talking about their "pre-streaming" relationship with music, and Trent mentioned the Columbia House record club, where you would get a couple of records or CD's in the mail each month. One month he received a copy of a Billy Joel album, begrudgingly listening to it over and over again because he had so few albums to choose from. He said that although he isn't a fan of the music, the exercise of repeatedly listening to something outside his usual tastes proved to be valuable as a songwriter. The point is that in a bottomless buffet of all-you-can-consume music, we've lost the connection with and value placed on music.
So why aren't there any upstart companies taking on Spotify? I really appreciate what Bandcamp is doing. They are so so close to getting it right. But, you can't purchase music on your phone. You have to log on to a computer, make the purchase, download the music, and then import it into your Apple Music library. Apple will not allow you to download music files onto an iPhone, so you have to put the files into the cloud and then stream them from there. You can’t purchase the album, and then stream it from the Bandcamp App because Apple won't let anyone sell music through an app in their ecosystem without taking a big cut. So the destop only purchasing is a disappointing workaround. Also, I guess it's too late but the name Bandcamp could've been better. Maybe they can change it to "X"?
Back in 2007 Radiohead released their album "In Rainbows" with a pay-what-you-want model with music downloaded from their own website. I recall them saying they made more money on that gambit than on all the records they had released up to that point, including mega smash hit album "OK Computer". Our ol' pal from two paragraphs ago, Trent Reznor, released NIN "Ghosts V" and "Ghosts VI" on his website during the pandemic, but these were free as far as I remember. So what's stopping artists from releasing music themselves and recouping 100% of the profit? I asked music industry expert ChatGPT for the answer to this question:
1) Distribution through online platforms: Musicians often rely on popular digital music distribution platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and others to reach a wider audience. These platforms have established user bases, built-in payment systems, and extensive marketing reach, making it easier for musicians to promote and sell their music.
2) Discoverability and exposure: Releasing music through major platforms can provide greater exposure to potential fans. These platforms use algorithms and recommendations to suggest music to users based on their listening habits, which can lead to increased visibility for artists.
3) Access to analytics and data: Digital music platforms offer valuable analytics and data insights to musicians, helping them understand their audience, track sales, and identify trends. This information can be instrumental in making informed marketing and promotional decisions.
4) Ease of use for fans: Many fans are already familiar with digital music platforms, making it convenient for them to discover, purchase, and listen to music on these platforms. Downloading from an artist's website might be an extra step that some fans might not want to take.
5) Financial transactions and security: Trusted digital music platforms handle secure financial transactions, making it easier for fans to buy music with confidence. Dealing with payment processing and security on an individual artist's website might require more technical resources and potentially raise security concerns.
6) Cost and maintenance: Running a website and managing digital downloads can incur costs and maintenance efforts, which may not be practical for all musicians, especially for those who are just starting or lack technical expertise.
The idea that high profile artists are reliant on Spotify to do their marketing for them doesn't really pass the sniff test. If Radiohead, Drake, Beyonce, Foo Fighters, U2, etc. wanted to release an album themselves they wouldn't be missing Spotify's marketing and distribution, and they'd certainly make up any sunk marketing costs in the money from album sales. Analytics and data can be easily tracked through purchases from a website, but again, for top-tier talent that data doesn't seem very important. Ease of use for fans. If your fanbase is largely comprised of baby boomers who still need help setting up their printer, maybe this is a legitimate barrier to entry.
"Rolling Stones digital music tech support, how may I help you?"
"Yes hello. I downloaded the songs onto the computer, but they disappeared. I looked in the trash can. Nothing."
I kid the boomers of course. If I didn’t grow up using these machines I’d probably have an AOL email address as well, and some of them are quite technologically proficient.
For musicians without a big following, I can understand the reliance on Spotify et al to help with exposure. You're giving up the hope of making any money for the opportunity to reach a wider audience. But you should be able to graduate from that once you hit even mid-tier status and not languish in servitude to Silicon Valley. Taylor Swift took her music off of Spotify a few years ago, but no other artists followed suit in solidarity, and she eventually relented.
I'm curious. Are people happy with the all-you-can-stream dynamic, or would they prefer something that requires more thought, better curation, and a healthier industry where artists are rewarded for quality work? It seems like there is a lot of room for improvement in the experience people have with music as it currently stands. The focus on AI-fueled music production and social media does not seek to bridge that gap.
What are we missing specifically from the current music experience? Liner notes, lyric sheets, musician credits, album artwork aside from the cover, interacting with other fans of the artist. The current ecosystem requires things like Linktree to give your fans links to any album extras that are siloed on various websites. Videos go on YouTube, lyrics, liner notes, press articles, all in different places. I know Spotify and Apple are working at consolidating this diaspora, but I don't have a lot of faith they will get it right. It would be great to have all of that stuff in one place, along with your social media, merchandise, option to buy the album in different formats including vinyl, interactive art, sheet music, tab, whatever.
People need to put some thought into what the ideal experience is, and what the costs of that are to the consumer. Because with Spotify's current business model, they might not be around in 5 years.