Reasons to Abandon Spotify That Have Nothing to Do with Joe Rogan(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Reasons to Abandon Spotify That Have Nothing to Do with Joe Rogan
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/imagine-a-world-without-spotify
52 comments
If consumers don't have the willingness to pay for a media service that not only covers operational costs of distribution but also fairly compensates those involved in making the media, then... that sounds pretty much like the definition of unethical and unsustainable. You can argue that the cause is consumer price sensitivity and it still won't change the ethics and sustainability issue. Although I think that's also missing the point, which has to include how consumers came to have this expectation in the first place, and the role that Spotify has played in setting that expectation.
When a Spotify exec called artists "entitled" for wanting payouts on the order of a penny a stream last summer [0], I went looking around to see if anyone was doing better and approaching that. Turned out Apple Music had gone there [1].
Maybe that's recently become possible with the economics of current digital distribution tech. Maybe Apple has an edge from leveraging infrastructure they need for other services anyway. Maybe they're subsidizing it. I don't know. But I do know that the economics of streaming services have to include substantial efforts to do right by media creators with audiences at multiple scales if they're to remain ethical.
[0] https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/06/29/spotify-executiv...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22387453/apple-music-arti...
When a Spotify exec called artists "entitled" for wanting payouts on the order of a penny a stream last summer [0], I went looking around to see if anyone was doing better and approaching that. Turned out Apple Music had gone there [1].
Maybe that's recently become possible with the economics of current digital distribution tech. Maybe Apple has an edge from leveraging infrastructure they need for other services anyway. Maybe they're subsidizing it. I don't know. But I do know that the economics of streaming services have to include substantial efforts to do right by media creators with audiences at multiple scales if they're to remain ethical.
[0] https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/06/29/spotify-executiv...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22387453/apple-music-arti...
You're absolutely right that it's unethical but whether it's sustainable is yet to be seen. So far the evidence suggests that it is.
> That leaves a very small amount for artists. Which is wrong. But what are you going to do?
I mean, you could start by taking a glance at the billions of dollars amassed but Spotify’s owners as a starting point.
I mean, you could start by taking a glance at the billions of dollars amassed but Spotify’s owners as a starting point.
Completely agree, but they're playing a game with artists which is something like "How little can we pay them and still have enough material for the average consumer to pay $10-15/mo to believe they have all the music in the world?" and they're not going to start paying artists more of their own volition.
So what action does that leave?
So what action does that leave?
Unpopular opinion: I get a lot more value from the output of Spotify's owners than I get from billions of musicians.
I only listen to hundreds of musicians and Spotify gives me those hundreds for $15/mo.
Those hundreds change by 10% ~ 30% every month into other hundreds.
I don't feel any ethical need to compensate musicians I don't listen to. And the ones I do listen to I don't feel strongly enough attached to to pay more than $15/mo for recurring access.
There are perhaps 10 whose permanent media I would buy and replay, if they left Spotify.
I only listen to hundreds of musicians and Spotify gives me those hundreds for $15/mo.
Those hundreds change by 10% ~ 30% every month into other hundreds.
I don't feel any ethical need to compensate musicians I don't listen to. And the ones I do listen to I don't feel strongly enough attached to to pay more than $15/mo for recurring access.
There are perhaps 10 whose permanent media I would buy and replay, if they left Spotify.
> I get a lot more value from the output of Spotify's owners than I get from billions of musicians.
I bet you don't. Since without the musicians there's no music, and without Spotify there's Apple Music, CD's, Napster, and so on and so forth.
The degree to which people attempt to ignore the value of recorded music from a financial standpoint always bothers me. It's one of the most enduring and useful things that makes people happy in the history of civilization. It's important to nearly all people in all cultures on earth, and unites and inspires us.
The largest peaceful gatherings of human beings that have ever happened, and ever happen, are people getting together to hear music performed.
So I disagree. I think you aren't actually allocating the value of music creation vs music distribution correctly,
I bet you don't. Since without the musicians there's no music, and without Spotify there's Apple Music, CD's, Napster, and so on and so forth.
The degree to which people attempt to ignore the value of recorded music from a financial standpoint always bothers me. It's one of the most enduring and useful things that makes people happy in the history of civilization. It's important to nearly all people in all cultures on earth, and unites and inspires us.
The largest peaceful gatherings of human beings that have ever happened, and ever happen, are people getting together to hear music performed.
So I disagree. I think you aren't actually allocating the value of music creation vs music distribution correctly,
I don't listen to billions of musicians: I listen to hundreds of musicians. I don't go to concerts or see live music performed.
Spotify's owners have made it easy for me to listen to those hundreds I like. I don't get any value at all from the creation of those billions I don't listen to. I get daily value from the creation of Spotify's owners.
Spotify's owners have made it easy for me to listen to those hundreds I like. I don't get any value at all from the creation of those billions I don't listen to. I get daily value from the creation of Spotify's owners.
Billons in profit? Based on music subs?
Daniel Ek (born 21 February 1983) is a Swedish billionaire entrepreneur and technologist. Ek is known for being the co-founder and CEO of music streaming service Spotify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ek
When he was born he didn't have billions of dollars. Now he does. Pretty sure it came from Spotify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ek
When he was born he didn't have billions of dollars. Now he does. Pretty sure it came from Spotify.
Could be stock in Spotify, which is speculation, not corporate profit. The fact that they got 2.5 billion investment show people think it will make money, not that it's making money.
I'm of the opinion that being a musician shouldn't imply that there should be money in it. It's a fun hobby for many and the reason it's so popular to try to be professional. 99 percent of musicians don't make any money off of it, and so crying about the ones that want to live off of their hobby doesn't achieve anything. I have musician friends. They all have regular jobs like I do. I'm a juggler. I don't expect to live off of juggling.
I abandoned The New Yorker a while ago. The entire magazine is one big woke circle jerk. These are people who get high off of smelling their own farts. The bias is everywhere in the magazine. Their long-form investigative work hasn't produced something interesting in some time. They must have lost their talented writers and editors in a woke war.
So, I don't really care what someone from the New Yorker has to say about Joe Rogan, as they join the cancel crusade.
If anything, I may sign up for Spotify for standing up against cancel culture, and I won't be subscribing to the New Yorker at time soon.
So, I don't really care what someone from the New Yorker has to say about Joe Rogan, as they join the cancel crusade.
If anything, I may sign up for Spotify for standing up against cancel culture, and I won't be subscribing to the New Yorker at time soon.
I’m not sure I can agree with you about the New Yorker’s “wokeness” and bias. But I will say that the magazine’s humor pieces and cartoons have changed completely over the past ten years. They used to be genuinely funny, sometimes hilarious, and appealed to a broader wit and humanity. Now they’re miserably self-referential. I doubt they’re even funny to the tiny in-group of wealthy anxious Manhattanites for whom they’re written.
I signed up for Spotify specifically to support Rogan.
Spotify alternatives:
Tidal https://tidal.com/
Deezer https://www.deezer.com/
Bandcamp https://bandcamp.com/
Jango https://www.jango.com/
Radio Paradise https://radioparadise.com/
Qobuz https://www.qobuz.com/
Pandora https://www.pandora.com/
Tidal https://tidal.com/
Deezer https://www.deezer.com/
Bandcamp https://bandcamp.com/
Jango https://www.jango.com/
Radio Paradise https://radioparadise.com/
Qobuz https://www.qobuz.com/
Pandora https://www.pandora.com/
What a weird list, why would you exclude it's biggest competitors? Amazon Music, Apple Music, YouTube Music?
Can you buy and own music from those services?
? what does that have to do with anything?
Spotify doesn't let you do that either, and OP mentioned "Spotify alternatives", not "Spotify Alternatives that aren't really alternatives because you buy the music instead of streaming which is a completely different service that has existed since iTunes"
Spotify doesn't let you do that either, and OP mentioned "Spotify alternatives", not "Spotify Alternatives that aren't really alternatives because you buy the music instead of streaming which is a completely different service that has existed since iTunes"
Because everyone already knows about them.
Nothing to do with Rogan but then goes on to discuss Rogan quite a bit with a generous helping of other Artists who have protested Rogan. The hubris on this person. He actually believes that he can talk people out of Spotify!
What's wrong with carrying your own music on your own storage device ? With appropriate backups of course and they neednt be mutually exclusive. The article does bring up this point of view towards the end.
I dislike the possibility, however remote, of being cut off from my music at the whim of a service provider or the government. I come from India, the current government is ever so trigger happy about cutting off the internet and/or web sites because someone said something that did not show them in the best of lights.
I dislike the possibility, however remote, of being cut off from my music at the whim of a service provider or the government. I come from India, the current government is ever so trigger happy about cutting off the internet and/or web sites because someone said something that did not show them in the best of lights.
That's exactly what I did before Spotify.
Just torrented the artist and put it in my own device.
Just torrented the artist and put it in my own device.
The idea that it's "too much" to expect all of the music for $10 is strange because there are legal ways to do that right now.
I can just go on YouTube, turn an ad blocker on, and there we go. It's not curated, there's no playlist, there's no buffering on my phone when I go underground, the general experience is worse, etc. But that's literally free. Without the ad blocker, it's ad supported, okay, so it's like default spotify without paying.
But it's there and it has been for like, ten years now. In fact I find that YT has loads of stuff that's not on Spotify at all.
If you're disappointed that it turns out that most people ended up not paying for music once they had the choice, fine. But like, the idea that it's somehow unsustainable is obviously wrong, and calling it unethical is pretty opinionated (how is it unethical for me to click on a Beatles video when they're all either dead or fantastically wealthy?)
I've been considering cancelling Spotify for ages, I've been on and off. The only thing that keeps me using the platform is that it's more convenient - it's like buying a coffee at the motorway services instead of making one from a bag of coffee, a cafetiere, and a kettle in my car. I can do it, I just don't want to sometimes.
I can just go on YouTube, turn an ad blocker on, and there we go. It's not curated, there's no playlist, there's no buffering on my phone when I go underground, the general experience is worse, etc. But that's literally free. Without the ad blocker, it's ad supported, okay, so it's like default spotify without paying.
But it's there and it has been for like, ten years now. In fact I find that YT has loads of stuff that's not on Spotify at all.
If you're disappointed that it turns out that most people ended up not paying for music once they had the choice, fine. But like, the idea that it's somehow unsustainable is obviously wrong, and calling it unethical is pretty opinionated (how is it unethical for me to click on a Beatles video when they're all either dead or fantastically wealthy?)
I've been considering cancelling Spotify for ages, I've been on and off. The only thing that keeps me using the platform is that it's more convenient - it's like buying a coffee at the motorway services instead of making one from a bag of coffee, a cafetiere, and a kettle in my car. I can do it, I just don't want to sometimes.
> how is it unethical for me to click on a Beatles video when they're all either dead or fantastically wealthy?
You're probably on the wrong track when your example happens to involve people whose level of success / compensation is so wildly outlier that they're not even representative of the top 10% (not to mention established under an entirely different distribution order). Of course marginal dollars don't matter as much in that case, let alone marginal pennies.
But they do matter quite a bit at the scale where people are within striking distance (above or below) of the transition point between making a living at music and not making a living at it. That's where ethics of supporting people whose work you apparently value would matter most.
There, YouTube's economics are also pretty unethical (from what I've heard their payouts are about half of Spotify and maybe adblockers make it worse). About the only saving grace is that everyone knows it's an essentially free show; no one is under the illusion they've participated in some kind of economically artist-supporting transaction when they watch a YouTube video, so those who feel some obligation on that front know they still need to do it. Spotify sometimes presents itself or is forwarded as a solution / alternative to piracy, giving it the veneer of an artist-supporting transaction when the more frequent reality is that its fractional nature pushes the point at which audience engagement can support artists economically up farther.
You're probably on the wrong track when your example happens to involve people whose level of success / compensation is so wildly outlier that they're not even representative of the top 10% (not to mention established under an entirely different distribution order). Of course marginal dollars don't matter as much in that case, let alone marginal pennies.
But they do matter quite a bit at the scale where people are within striking distance (above or below) of the transition point between making a living at music and not making a living at it. That's where ethics of supporting people whose work you apparently value would matter most.
There, YouTube's economics are also pretty unethical (from what I've heard their payouts are about half of Spotify and maybe adblockers make it worse). About the only saving grace is that everyone knows it's an essentially free show; no one is under the illusion they've participated in some kind of economically artist-supporting transaction when they watch a YouTube video, so those who feel some obligation on that front know they still need to do it. Spotify sometimes presents itself or is forwarded as a solution / alternative to piracy, giving it the veneer of an artist-supporting transaction when the more frequent reality is that its fractional nature pushes the point at which audience engagement can support artists economically up farther.
I was skeptical, so I just searched for some rather obscure stuff on YT, and wow—they had it all.
But how’s the audio quality? Is it as good as Spotify?
But how’s the audio quality? Is it as good as Spotify?
Quite a lot of stuff is uploaded with lower quality on YouTube, often on purpose (e.g. popular techno channels like HATE are allowed to upload a lot of tracks but it's still a type of promo so it's at a Lower bitrate) compared to the lossless option on Spotify. I'd wager most wouldnt notice the difference though.
“Quite a lot of stuff is uploaded with lower quality on YouTube.”
Yeah, I suspected that. That’s enough reason for me to stick with Spotify.
Yeah, I suspected that. That’s enough reason for me to stick with Spotify.
Maybe I am too old fashioned, buying music direct from musicians, after concert gigs, and making my own play lists.
No need to abandon something I never bothered with in first place.
No need to abandon something I never bothered with in first place.
>Maybe I am too old fashioned, buying music direct from musicians, after concert gigs, and making my own play lists.
Wow! I'd like to see your collection of wax cylinders!
Wow! I'd like to see your collection of wax cylinders!
Buying tapes, or nowadays CDs has very little to do with wax cylinders.
Im with you dude. Music has a distinct meaning to me. I like to engage in the story, not consume passively.
Love Spotify myself. They've done what none of the competitors have managed in my opinion.
Good free-tier, amazing premium service and price, an unbelievably large collection of artists and music, strong privacy protection without the need to provide credit card details (for free tier) or mobile phone numbers, in a super-polished and easy to use package, without all the terrible data-collection.
They really have become the kings of music streaming.
Good free-tier, amazing premium service and price, an unbelievably large collection of artists and music, strong privacy protection without the need to provide credit card details (for free tier) or mobile phone numbers, in a super-polished and easy to use package, without all the terrible data-collection.
They really have become the kings of music streaming.
// without all the terrible data collection //
That's not true. Check this out:
https://nitter.net/steipete/status/1025024813889478656
That's not true. Check this out:
https://nitter.net/steipete/status/1025024813889478656
You don't have to provide details, ever. I have Spotify Premium. I go to a retailer and use cash to buy a card good for a year's subscription for $100. Then I enter the card into my account. The email address is @mailinator.com in case I ever need to check something, but otherwise they have no clue who I am.
When it expires, if I haven't been paying attention, I live with free-tier for a day or two until I can go buy another card.
When it expires, if I haven't been paying attention, I live with free-tier for a day or two until I can go buy another card.
> Spotify, like Facebook and Amazon, has the advantage of being odiously indispensable. No matter how much people grow to hate the service, they cannot envision life without it.
Are you kidding me? If you don’t like something about Spotify, switch to Amazon or Apple music, Pandora, Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer, or a dozen others.
This seems like “As much as I dislike Bing, I cannot envision life without it!”
Are you kidding me? If you don’t like something about Spotify, switch to Amazon or Apple music, Pandora, Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer, or a dozen others.
This seems like “As much as I dislike Bing, I cannot envision life without it!”
Pandora is in no way a replacement for Spotify.
With Tidal or Amazon, can I just import my Spotify library in? How do I know they have all my music?
Search engines are not the right analogy here.
With Tidal or Amazon, can I just import my Spotify library in? How do I know they have all my music?
Search engines are not the right analogy here.
I know your questions were rhetoric but on importing Spotify to Tidal, I've recently tried it and it was not as smooth as I hoped so gave up for the time being. Tidal recommend a 3rd party. I went to their website, selected Spotify -> Tidal, then read something about it only transferring 500 songs for free. You need to PAY for a SUBSCRIPTION to do this one off job and it isn't cheap ... so I quit the process before signing in with auth0. I scoured GitHub for good Spotify to Tidal python libraries and couldn't get any to work. I then thought I'd just make my own since I have the nice JSON export of my Spotify data, but then then couldn't find details on an official public Tidal API so totally gave up and now my free trial has run out. Tidal have lost a customer and I'm stuck with Spotify when what I really want is for bandcamp to have a better app, more geared to long music listening sessions, with playlists.
Thanks. My questions weren't purely rhetorical. I do want to actually know the feasibility of ditching Spotify, and this comment may save me some time in terms of figuring out how to export to Tidal if I want to.
[deleted]
> Pandora is in no way a replacement for Spotify.
Pandora now offers on-demand streaming as a subscription service (Pandora Premium), just like Spotify. This has been available since 2017, after Pandora acquired the assets of Rdio.[1]
Pandora's music discovery features are best-in-class, but its maximum audio quality is lower than that of other services (192kbps vs. Spotify's 320kbps).[2] Pandora also pays artists less per stream than Spotify and most other services do,[3] probably because Pandora has a huge proportion of free users.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-03-13-pandora-premium-music-st...
[2] https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-much-speed-d...
[3] https://producerhive.com/music-marketing-tips/streaming-roya...
Pandora now offers on-demand streaming as a subscription service (Pandora Premium), just like Spotify. This has been available since 2017, after Pandora acquired the assets of Rdio.[1]
Pandora's music discovery features are best-in-class, but its maximum audio quality is lower than that of other services (192kbps vs. Spotify's 320kbps).[2] Pandora also pays artists less per stream than Spotify and most other services do,[3] probably because Pandora has a huge proportion of free users.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-03-13-pandora-premium-music-st...
[2] https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-much-speed-d...
[3] https://producerhive.com/music-marketing-tips/streaming-roya...
Oh cool, I'll look into it and see if they have a free trial.
Combining Pandora's superior discovery functionality with Spotify's ease-of-use and control would be great.
Combining Pandora's superior discovery functionality with Spotify's ease-of-use and control would be great.
Spotify was not available in my country for ages and it insists on using DRM on the web so I never signed up.
YouTube Music is great – no DRM, one subscription for music and getting rid of YouTube ads (while supporting your favorite video creators far better than ads do).
YouTube Music is great – no DRM, one subscription for music and getting rid of YouTube ads (while supporting your favorite video creators far better than ads do).
Except not everything on my YouTube playlists is listenable on Music since it doesn't recognize that it's a track and grays them out. Other than that and some other minor gripes (no way to have videos take up the whole window, just small part of it or Fullscreen) it's a nice service.
Maybe the solution is to use streaming as a discovery service but still encourage people to buy albums directly from the musician.
The musician can add value to the albums by making it a beautiful package with lots of extra details and behind the scenes of the music.
For example: a box set
https://us-store.deutschegrammophon.com/products/hilary-hahn...
The musician can add value to the albums by making it a beautiful package with lots of extra details and behind the scenes of the music.
For example: a box set
https://us-store.deutschegrammophon.com/products/hilary-hahn...
I've never signed up to a music streaming service, I distrust them immensely, I don't like the idea of algos picking my music, especially not, if you like that, then you'll like this, I think it's recipe for making everything sound the same
I also don't like the amount they payout to artists. I'm no saint, I used to be on napster and limewire, but now having a decent paying job, I buy albums again from services like Bleep. As I like a lot of indie stuff, I think it's important they get a decent cut because I don't think many of them are selling in the millions.
I still don't feel much guilt pirating the odd movie, especially as it's no longer possible to sign up for a single provider, I now have to sign up for multiple services. And twenty bucks is too damn much for a single VOD
But the media I use most, mostly video games and music, I really don't mind paying.
I also don't like the amount they payout to artists. I'm no saint, I used to be on napster and limewire, but now having a decent paying job, I buy albums again from services like Bleep. As I like a lot of indie stuff, I think it's important they get a decent cut because I don't think many of them are selling in the millions.
I still don't feel much guilt pirating the odd movie, especially as it's no longer possible to sign up for a single provider, I now have to sign up for multiple services. And twenty bucks is too damn much for a single VOD
But the media I use most, mostly video games and music, I really don't mind paying.
You don't like how much they pay artists so you decided to pay nothing. Great logic.
Read
With torrent sites existing, the real value of music recordings is zero dollars.
Another way to look at Spotify is actually trying to recover some of this money for artists.
Another way to look at Spotify is actually trying to recover some of this money for artists.
I never liked Spotify, most music I listen to is not available there, you have to login/make an account of someone wants to share a song with you (pfff) and ofcourse the total bs about 'paying artist' while pirating music themselves[0]. This is just a company interested in making a profit [1]. Nothing more nothing less
[0] https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-threatened-researchers-who-...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxxkn/musicians-are-draggin...
[0] https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-threatened-researchers-who-...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxxkn/musicians-are-draggin...
What music do you listen to that’s not on Spotify?
From what I was reading Daniel Ek made tons of money before Spotify.
I heard that Spotify doesn't make a profit.
I heard that Spotify doesn't make a profit.
— Ross Grady, missing the point.
This has nothing to do with Spotify and everything to do with the market for streaming services.
It takes an unbelievable amount of money to operate a service like Spotify and consumers have not yet demonstrating a willingness to pay more than $10-15/mo for pretty much any mainstream digital subscription.
That leaves a very small amount for artists. Which is wrong. But what are you going to do?
Either customers pay more, which they won't.
Or artists leave Spotify for platforms that pay them more in hope the increased cut compensates for significantly lower volume, which is unlikely.
Or someone finds a way to run a global streaming service at such a reduced cost that some savings can be passed onto the artists, which would've happened already if possible.