Thank you for this (once again) thorough and thought-provoking essay. This time, however, I’d like to add something. You touch on this issue briefly, but I feel that the problem began elsewhere, and that Spotify is not the creator but rather the exploiter of a phenomenon — one that, in true capitalist fashion, it has managed to refine into a perfected form of exploitation.
Back when I was still teaching at the University of Theatre and Film Arts in Budapest (which, like so many other institutions, has since been ruined by Orbán), I would begin my classes by asking each student to introduce themselves through a piece of music that had meant something to them recently. What I often witnessed was that, while listening together in class, students would suddenly notice details they’d missed before — or, in more awkward cases, realize that the track they had chosen was, when listened to properly, actually quite boring.
I have the sense that a significant part of society has forgotten how to truly listen to music. We live in constant sonic clutter; most environments are shaped by an unspoken pressure that something must always be playing in the background. Music has been degraded to mere noise — or at best, ambient decoration — its importance reduced to that of a throw pillow or a scented candle. Even among musician friends, background music often plays during conversations, which I find more distracting than atmospheric. How am I supposed to discuss the crisis of European politics or share thoughts about a recent powerful film experience while a world-changing saxophone solo blares behind us?
Why are we so afraid of silence? Why does it now feel unusual when a restaurant doesn’t have music playing? Why have so many forgotten that listening to an album from start to finish can be just as cathartic as reading a novel, watching a film, visiting a museum, or going on a hike?
The key difference is that people tend to devote their full attention to those other experiences.
We as musicians share some responsibility in this. We can speak up when music is too loud or disruptive. We can also say how refreshing it is when a space doesn’t feel the need for constant background sound. And perhaps even more importantly: we ourselves should keep having powerful album experiences. We should seek them out, listen deeply, so that when someone asks us about the last record that truly moved us, we can recommend something that shook us to the core — something we couldn’t stop listening to and that still haunts us. Because there are so many of these miracles. Every day, our fellow musicians are recording bold, intimate, emotional, exploratory music.
When we share these with each other, we build community. We give others the chance to experience the same kind of wonder we did. And we give creators the chance to reach people with something into which they poured their lives, their faith, and who knows what else — something that, if it’s up to Spotify, will vanish into the digital void, never to be heard at all.
Thanks for writing this in such a clear and easy to understand way. I hope this helps more people understand the many issues with Spotify. I personally have never used Spotify for many of these reasons, as well as others. And I agree that more intentional listening, as well as purchasing music, is so important on many levels.
Absolutely on the nose. While Bandcamp seems to be the best model for buying downloads, I also buy from hi-res retailers. I will never join Spotify or any of the other streamers. The evil vs convenience trade off is just too onerous. I’m so old that buying albums seems normal to me. I’ve been doing it all my life.
Thanks for yet another thought-provoking essay! I'm all for making music 'industry' more ethical and supporting artists as much as I can. Albums and hand-curated playlists both can be for intentional listening, just in different ways.
A couple more reflections. I definitely, and I'm sure many others too, would be happy to pay more for a streaming subscription if that went directly to the artists. Or if there was a way to allocate more money to a number of artists within the streaming service, I think that would go down well too. Atm I personally don't have the means, physical and financial, to buy every single record I love and it would agonise me to have to choose--but I'd be down for renting vinyls. I also love live music more than listening at home and I'm more than happy to pay for that even now with my limited budget. The (perhaps naive) idealist in me can totally see a new ethical platform that retains the best of streaming services (unlimited access and discovery) with fair and proper compensation to artists, and that protects intellectual property rights. The one thing that's good about the internet in general is democratising access on both sides of the audience, and fostering connections between artists and listeners that was previously limited by geography and the size of wallets. I'm curious, do record labels ever negotiate with streaming platforms on behalf of artists?
Thanks so much for reading, and for your thoughtful comments! I absolutely hear you in re: budget. I wish I had had the space to make a different (and related) argument, which I actually laid out in a tumblr post about 14 years go, in which I argued that the problem with streaming services is as much a spiritual one (how it degrades our listening) as it is about economics.
That is to say: I'm not sure that having infinite access to all music at all times is helpful for us as humans/listeners. Through the process of writing this piece, I realized how much the quality of my listening has declined, and I've decided, as a result, to give up Tidal, and to do the very thing I've proposed at the end of my essay: to give myself a budget, and listen within my means. This will almost certainly mean checking out less music, but I hope I will engage with it more deeply. This isn't to say that you should necessarily follow my lead; it's just what I'm doing for myself.
As to your question about record labels negotiating w/ streamers on behalf of artists: the major labels own a good chunk of Spotify; I recommend reading Liz Pelly's book in its entirety for more detail. The bottom line is that the major labels have more leverage over Spotify because they have equity; this is not the case for indie labels.
A number of jazz artists I admire, Jason Moran among them, don't release music on streaming at all, and I have thought about doing the same in the future. As Spotify's algorithm becomes more and more punishing of unusual music, it feels less and less useful to justify it as "means to an end" if no one is going to discover my music there anyway...
No argument here so I'll just add that I've never seen that Picasso painting before but, man, you couldn't possibly have found a more apt image for this post.
Dear Gabriel!
Thank you for this (once again) thorough and thought-provoking essay. This time, however, I’d like to add something. You touch on this issue briefly, but I feel that the problem began elsewhere, and that Spotify is not the creator but rather the exploiter of a phenomenon — one that, in true capitalist fashion, it has managed to refine into a perfected form of exploitation.
Back when I was still teaching at the University of Theatre and Film Arts in Budapest (which, like so many other institutions, has since been ruined by Orbán), I would begin my classes by asking each student to introduce themselves through a piece of music that had meant something to them recently. What I often witnessed was that, while listening together in class, students would suddenly notice details they’d missed before — or, in more awkward cases, realize that the track they had chosen was, when listened to properly, actually quite boring.
I have the sense that a significant part of society has forgotten how to truly listen to music. We live in constant sonic clutter; most environments are shaped by an unspoken pressure that something must always be playing in the background. Music has been degraded to mere noise — or at best, ambient decoration — its importance reduced to that of a throw pillow or a scented candle. Even among musician friends, background music often plays during conversations, which I find more distracting than atmospheric. How am I supposed to discuss the crisis of European politics or share thoughts about a recent powerful film experience while a world-changing saxophone solo blares behind us?
Why are we so afraid of silence? Why does it now feel unusual when a restaurant doesn’t have music playing? Why have so many forgotten that listening to an album from start to finish can be just as cathartic as reading a novel, watching a film, visiting a museum, or going on a hike?
The key difference is that people tend to devote their full attention to those other experiences.
We as musicians share some responsibility in this. We can speak up when music is too loud or disruptive. We can also say how refreshing it is when a space doesn’t feel the need for constant background sound. And perhaps even more importantly: we ourselves should keep having powerful album experiences. We should seek them out, listen deeply, so that when someone asks us about the last record that truly moved us, we can recommend something that shook us to the core — something we couldn’t stop listening to and that still haunts us. Because there are so many of these miracles. Every day, our fellow musicians are recording bold, intimate, emotional, exploratory music.
When we share these with each other, we build community. We give others the chance to experience the same kind of wonder we did. And we give creators the chance to reach people with something into which they poured their lives, their faith, and who knows what else — something that, if it’s up to Spotify, will vanish into the digital void, never to be heard at all.
Required reading.
Thank you, Steven!!!
well said. to better ways ahead!
Thanks for writing this in such a clear and easy to understand way. I hope this helps more people understand the many issues with Spotify. I personally have never used Spotify for many of these reasons, as well as others. And I agree that more intentional listening, as well as purchasing music, is so important on many levels.
Beautifully written. There has never been a better time to invest (or reinvest) in CDs and vinyl.
Absolutely on the nose. While Bandcamp seems to be the best model for buying downloads, I also buy from hi-res retailers. I will never join Spotify or any of the other streamers. The evil vs convenience trade off is just too onerous. I’m so old that buying albums seems normal to me. I’ve been doing it all my life.
Bless you, Chris!!!
Thanks for yet another thought-provoking essay! I'm all for making music 'industry' more ethical and supporting artists as much as I can. Albums and hand-curated playlists both can be for intentional listening, just in different ways.
A couple more reflections. I definitely, and I'm sure many others too, would be happy to pay more for a streaming subscription if that went directly to the artists. Or if there was a way to allocate more money to a number of artists within the streaming service, I think that would go down well too. Atm I personally don't have the means, physical and financial, to buy every single record I love and it would agonise me to have to choose--but I'd be down for renting vinyls. I also love live music more than listening at home and I'm more than happy to pay for that even now with my limited budget. The (perhaps naive) idealist in me can totally see a new ethical platform that retains the best of streaming services (unlimited access and discovery) with fair and proper compensation to artists, and that protects intellectual property rights. The one thing that's good about the internet in general is democratising access on both sides of the audience, and fostering connections between artists and listeners that was previously limited by geography and the size of wallets. I'm curious, do record labels ever negotiate with streaming platforms on behalf of artists?
Hi Reka,
Thanks so much for reading, and for your thoughtful comments! I absolutely hear you in re: budget. I wish I had had the space to make a different (and related) argument, which I actually laid out in a tumblr post about 14 years go, in which I argued that the problem with streaming services is as much a spiritual one (how it degrades our listening) as it is about economics.
That is to say: I'm not sure that having infinite access to all music at all times is helpful for us as humans/listeners. Through the process of writing this piece, I realized how much the quality of my listening has declined, and I've decided, as a result, to give up Tidal, and to do the very thing I've proposed at the end of my essay: to give myself a budget, and listen within my means. This will almost certainly mean checking out less music, but I hope I will engage with it more deeply. This isn't to say that you should necessarily follow my lead; it's just what I'm doing for myself.
As to your question about record labels negotiating w/ streamers on behalf of artists: the major labels own a good chunk of Spotify; I recommend reading Liz Pelly's book in its entirety for more detail. The bottom line is that the major labels have more leverage over Spotify because they have equity; this is not the case for indie labels.
A number of jazz artists I admire, Jason Moran among them, don't release music on streaming at all, and I have thought about doing the same in the future. As Spotify's algorithm becomes more and more punishing of unusual music, it feels less and less useful to justify it as "means to an end" if no one is going to discover my music there anyway...
Thanks again!!!
Thank you for writing this! 💔
No argument here so I'll just add that I've never seen that Picasso painting before but, man, you couldn't possibly have found a more apt image for this post.
Thanks for reading, David!!!