Justin Snyders

03-06-13
ENG101
Spotify: The Streaming Savior, or the Digital Demon?
There are multiple perspectives one must take when questioning the possible detrimental
impact of streaming services on the music industry. Are the artists the only ones being hurt? Are
labels losing money? Is this issue something to be worried about as consumers? All of these
questions have to be answered to start gaining a clear view of the issue. Companies like Spotify
and Pandora have taken over how the current generation listens to music. Artists have voiced
negatively over these services, while business leaders have been giving strong support. To find
out the more specific questions above, this inquiry will use multiple sources to answer the
broader question at hand, are streaming services hurting or helping the music industry?
As Music Streaming Grows, Royalties Slow to a Trickle, tackles the issue of how
streaming services undervalue musical artists. Ben Sisario is a journalist who covers music-
related topics for the New York Times. Sisario digs deep into this topic by introducing multiple
viewpoints from artists and business members alike. Sisario compares downloads to streaming
by stating, On a 99-cent download, a typical artist may earn 7 to 10 cents. While streaming
services pay fractions of a cent to record companies and publishers each time a song is played,
some portion of which goes to performers and songwriters as royalties (1). This exposes the
reality that the artists who make the music make a minuscule amount when their music is
streamed. Sisario adds that some people believe these streaming services will eventually help
these artists. Introducing the opinion that Spotify is too young, and therefore is not at its full
potential just yet.
Sisario agrees with the fact that streaming services are hurting artists, but only because
these services are so young. He implicitly delivers this issue for the readers, as he directly
confronts the reader. An assumption present that could be made out is that Spotify is the next
best thing. This is needed because it is assumed that Spotify will lead the future of music
consumption. I will say that I agree with the fact that streaming services are hurting artists. Many
artists have protested these services as they feel like its undervaluing their worth. In todays
digital world, artists are undervalued. With the majority of artists revenue going towards the
label company, the artists themselves are the last on the list to get paid.
An example of an artist voicing their disgust at not only streaming services, but also at
the direction the music industry is heading in, is found in Stuart Dredges article. Dredge is a
technology-based journalist for The Guardian. Dredge wrote the article, Thom Yorke calls
Spotify 'the last desperate fart of a dying corpse, on October 7th, 2013. This date is Spotifys
fifth birthday, and it has grown in enormous numbers since then. Consumers love this type of
streaming capabilities, but artist Thom Yorke does not. Yorke, front man for the rock band
Radiohead, offers his opinion on the new services and the impact it leaves on the music industry;
"I feel like as musicians we need to fight the Spotify thing (para 1). Yorke also adds, it's all
about what happens next in terms of technologyand a lot of it could be really f*****g bad
(para. 3). Dredge agrees with Yorke, supporting that artists should fight this breakdown in music
consumption. To offer a counter argument, Dredge does counter his position by including that in
Sweden and Norway, they saw spikes in recorded music revenues in 2013 due to streaming
services. Dredge then flips back to his original opinion and ends the article with Yorke claiming
the new popularity in streaming is B******t (para. 14).
I liked this article for the fact that it explicitly showed an artists viewpoint of the
steaming industry. I would have preferred that the author used more than one artist to explore the
different viewpoints. As using more than one artist would have avoided the extreme bias and
could have given more support to Yorkes claims. The argument was made pretty clear as
Dredge focused on one side of the argument for the majority of this piece. This is an explicit
argument as Dredge bombards the reader with many supportive claims to back up Yorkes
position. The assumption is that the audience knows how the music business works. As Dredge
doesnt spend much time explaining why Yorke is making these statements, and instead just
focusing on Yorkes opinion. I agree that major labels are the only group benefiting from Spotify
at this moment in time, but the difference with me is that Dredge and Yorke seem to think that
nothing beneficial can/will ever come out of streaming services. I think that Spotify and other
services can be made to benefit the company, the artists, and the people. This article does agree
with Sisarios article, but it takes a much more radical take. They would both agree that Spotify
at this moment in time is detrimental to artists, but Dredge and Yorke see the future as bleak for
music.
Here, Jon Haupt takes everything about Spotify and sees if it is really beneficial to the
music industry and its customers. The website Project Muse, publishes journal collections, these
journals address topics ranging from digital humanities to social science. Haupt contributed to
the journal with a review of Spotify. Haupt informs the reader of Spotifys many features,
including; Spotifys catalog, how to make playlists, the technology behind the streaming service,
and its functionality. Once Haupt gets through with all the technical details, he reveals his
concluding opinion on the music service. Haupt states first that Spotify is popular, but there are
many reasons to be unhappy with it, and the industry should seek out additional revenue from
personal connections to artists, extra textual and visual material, and other value-added
approaches, to fix the issue of royalties and revenue (1). Haupt explains that in the future
everyone will consume music by paying a monthly fee just like a gas, electric, or Netflix bill (1).
With this payment method, artists would be paid evenly based on how many subscribers the
service has. Haupt portrays a very bright future for Spotify, but at this moment Spotify isnt at its
full potential.
This was a much more implicit and technical look at Spotifys flaws and benefits. Haupt
unveiled his opinion on my question in the conclusion. Once Haupt made his argument, his
argument was clear. Haupt thinks Spotify could use some aging and technical improvements to
reach its full potential. The only assumption in this article is the same that I have found in
multiple sources, and that is that Spotify is the next big thing. Haupt presents the positives and
negatives in a very informed way and uses outside information here and there to bolster his
concluding opinions. Spotify could easily be the future of how the majority of people consume
music. It allows for personalization, convenience, affordability, and it deters piracy. As I initially
was questionable of Spotify and it effects on artists, this source and Sisarios source has shown
me that the future is where the success and fairness lies.
With the past sources all acknowledging Spotifys current issues, this source does not ask
the question of if Spotify is going to save the industry, but instead it tells the reader that Spotify
already has saved the industry. A former Wall Street Journal contributor who focused on digital
media, Joan E. Solsman, stands her ground when defending the streaming service company. Her
article, Spotify Sets Mobile Music Free, published on CNET, celebrated Spotify. To labels
and other rights holders, this is all about money. So long as they get paid, they dont care which
service wins (Solsman para. 15). This is just one of Solsmans strong statements that claim
labels do not care about music consumption, artists payout, or copyright issues. They just want
to see green, and a lot of it. To fix this, she offers a strong quote from Forrester analyst James
McQuivey to support her stance that states, The more music you play, the more likely you'll
pay (para. 16). Ultimately, helping the music industry and the artist themselves.
This source is very explicit as Joan makes her opinion well known to her readers. The
assumption here is that the readers know about the history and the current state of the music
licensing and copyright debate. While I do agree with Solsman that labels are the focal point of
the problem, I do not agree with her on her stance that the consumers are more important than
the artists. It is the musicians art and they should be allowed to either distribute it how they
please, or get paid a fair amount for others to do it, and neither of that is happening. To her it is
all about the customer, and while that is an important factor, music is still an art and not
necessarily a product. The artists need to benefit as well or the future will look bleak for these
musicians.
Artists, consumers, experts on technology, and businessmen have all had their opinion
voiced in this discussion. The last source I want to use is a statistical collection by the Spotify
team themselves. Spotify Explained, is found on the Spotify website, and it compiles a lot of
data to support the idea that Spotify is helping the artists. The main goal of this is to restore
much of the lost value by convincing music fans to pay for music once again (1). Spotify goes
out of their way to make their perspective understood. They throw statistics left and right at the
reader, barraging them with numbers and graphs. Some statistics the Spotify team offers are;
Spotify pays out 70% of their revenue in royalties to the music rights holders, they pay out more
per 1 million listens than any other service, and that since they offer a free service it is shown
that Spotify has drastically cut into piracy rates (1). All of these point to the belief that Spotify is
in it for the artist.
While this article is greatly biased and shows no real counter arguments to the companys
own stance, it is still a very convincing and strong argument. One has to understand the
perspective of the company to understand the issue at a whole. Taking the explicit route, Spotify
gathered all the data they could to show listeners and musical artists that they care for the artists
and the music industry. I respected the fact that the Spotify team included that each artist has a
different contract with their respective label, and depending on that label, they could make more
or less on royalties. This is important because it even further supports the perspective that maybe
the labels are more to blame than the streaming services. My only issue is the fact that they did
not give enough detail on how much gets paid out to artists. This is due to the fact that it is so
hard to measure the number that labels give artist due to the variance in payouts. Instead, Spotify
shows us the amount they pay to labels, but the majority of it goes to the label company. In this
source Spotify doesnt acknowledge this issue or offer any solutions for artists to keep more
money. They only slightly hinted to the suggestion that independent artists make could
potentially make more per stream than artists on a label. This source was effective in its purpose,
this source has helped me look at label companies now for the majority of the blame when it
comes to the undervaluing of artists.
These sources either look at Spotify as the destroyer, as the future of how people listen to
music, or as the savior of the music industry today. Even with these differences, these sources
can agree on one thing. That Spotify has the future of music consumption in their hands. To
recap, Sisario felt as if Spotify could grow out of its issues in the future. Dredge felt that if artists
hate the service, he should too. Haupt is on the same page as Sisario believing that the future will
bring the best out of Spotify. Solsman thinks not much is wrong with Spotify and that it even
took them too long (due to copyright issues) to be the savior of music consumption. Then the
Spotify team feels that since they payout more than they take in, they are immensely in support
of the artists and the music business as a whole.
Back to the main question, is Spotify detrimental to artists? Yes and no. Yes because
Spotify is not that old yet. Therefore, they do not have enough premium subscribers, or respect
among artists. Also, they payout to labels directly, not the artists. This hurts the artists because
the people who distribute their music are reaping the benefits. The flip side is that Spotify isnt
responsible for how their royalties are distributed. They are doing their best deterring piracy,
paying out 70% of revenues, and expanding peoples music horizons. Spotify also could be
helpful after a few more years (if Spotify continues to grow). Spotify might reach the point
where artists are monetarily and artistically benefiting from the service. As more people pay and
less people pirate the artists should prosper. After analyzing these past five sources and others, I
feel that while Spotify is young and hindered by that, but it ultimately is better than the
alternatives. The positives far outweigh the negatives: Anti-piracy, more money for the industry
as a whole, helping listeners expand their music tastes, and renewing peoples interest in actually
paying for music. Spotify has helped me listen to artists I would have never heard of before
without their convenient service. Now not only am I going to be a Spotify premium member
soon, I also buy a lot more CDs, records, and even concert tickets. I have realized that it is not
Spotifys fault for the undervaluing of musicians. More blame and focus needs to be put on label
companies so these artists like Thom Yokre can see how they benefit from these types of
streaming services. The more people that support Spotify will help support artists and the growth
of music in general, giving more power to artists instead of the labels that plague the industry.
Dredge, Stuart. "Thom Yorke Calls Spotify 'the Last Desperate Fart of a Dying Corpse'" The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
Haupt, Jon. "Project MUSE - Spotify (review)." Project MUSE - Spotify (review). Project
MUSE, Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
Sisario, Ben. "As Music Streaming Grows, Royalties Slow to a Trickle." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
Solsman, Joan E. "Spotify Sets Mobile Music Free. What Took so Long?" CNET News. CBS
Interactive, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
Spotify. "Spotify Explained." Spotify for Artists Spotify Explained Comments. Spotify, 2013.
Web. 01 Mar. 2014.