Thank you Spotify for ruining the music industry! I mean it!

For a relatively long time, I’ve been a passionate hater of music streaming services, especially Spotify, which has probably popularized this type of service the most.

So I thought I’ll ask ChatGPT; there are no ground-breaking ideas in the conversation below. In addition to the traditional fawning from ChatGPT, I still think some parts of the discussion were interesting, hopeful and positive enough.

MŽE

Spotify and other streaming services is the worst thing to hit the music industry in a long time. Convince me otherwise.

ChatGPT

This is a very interesting topic! I understand the arguments against it - lousy earnings for artists, algorithmic dominance, and the devaluation of music as something that is "just streamed" instead of people actually buying it. But if I had to argue for it, I'd say that streaming services have made music hugely accessible. It used to be that you had to buy physical albums or pirate them, now you can play any song at any time, legally. This allows a lot of small bands to reach audiences they would never have reached otherwise. Plus, people are discovering a lot more music than ever before - instead of one CD a year, they can now listen to thousands of albums and find new stuff. Sure, it's unfair to musicians, but the question is whether the alternative would be better. Do you think if Spotify didn't exist, people would go back to buying music en masse, or would there just be more pirating?

MŽE

Piracy has entered the mainstream precisely because the price of music is so negligible that practically everyone pirates nowadays. A bribe of a few dollars a month is such a terribly small item for the modern person that huge masses of people can afford it. We have solved the problem of music piracy on the Internet, which has been around since the 1990s, by having, in quotes, just about everybody pirate.

ChatGPT

Yeah, it's a pretty paradoxical situation. Streaming services have actually solved the problem of piracy by making it legal - instead of downloading illegally, most people nowadays "rent" music for a few crowns a month. But this has also changed the perception of the value of music. It's no longer something one carefully selects and buys, but rather an endless buffet where one takes what one wants and doesn't think much about it. But it's also interesting to look at the other side - without streaming services, the music industry might lose even more money, because the real alternative would probably not be buying albums in bulk, but simply a return to piracy in full force. So the question is whether this "deal with the devil" is better than a situation where nobody pays for music at all. So what would you consider a better model? Something like Bandcamp, where people buy music directly from artists, or some other form of support?

MŽE

For me, there is no ideal solution, and I'm more bothered by the centralization that leads to the fact that we have a kind of vague and abstract feeling that by paying for a service, maybe some of it will go to the artist; but the only ones who really get money out of it are music publishers and distributors. But as we know from Spotify's history, the artist who creates the music gets a completely ridiculous share of the royalties. I'm not trying to marginalise the role of music distributors, but at the same time we shouldn't forget the 'source' of the music.

ChatGPT

Yeah, centralization of music distribution a real problem. At least there used to be more channels - independent labels, physical carriers, DIY distribution. Now we have one giant ecosystem where a few companies and algorithms dictate the rules. Artists have to adapt to have any chance of breaking through. And as you say, most of the money will be raked in by the big players, while the creators get the crumbs. Sure, Spotify allows anyone to upload their music and theoretically get it out to millions of people. But realistically, that means there's a huge amount of noise in that giant catalogue and it's extremely hard to break through. And even if you do, the earnings are ridiculous. What might help is more decentralization. Something like Bandcamp on steroids - a system where fans could support artists directly, without middlemen, and where there would also be some sort of fairer revenue distribution model. But how do you make it both convenient for listeners and realistically sustainable? That's the hard question.

MŽE

It's just that the devolution that Spotify started is, I think, irreversible. People have gotten used to the idea that music is free and that it's some sort of publicly available commodity that they can consume it without limit. The right way to go should be just to make people "uncomfortable" and force them to buy specific music that interests them, and not end up with the endless buffet you were talking about a moment ago.

ChatGPT

Yeah, this is exactly the key problem - habit. People don't want to choose anymore, they want an endless supply of music, anytime, anywhere. And that return to the pick-and-buy model is almost unimaginable in today's digital world. The only way this could change is if the artists and labels themselves started actively sabotaging the streaming model and pushing fans back to direct support. Kind of like when Taylor Swift or Neil Young pulled their music from Spotify - but on a mass scale. It's just that the reality is that most artists are addicted to those platforms because even if it doesn't make them much money, it's still at least something. So the question is whether a hybrid model where streaming works better for music discovery, but if you want more, you have to pay - maybe higher quality, exclusive content, or a deeper connection with the artist. But as you say, the current "devolution" is hard to reverse. Do you think there's a tipping point where that might change, or are we already doomed to musical fast food?

MŽE

Musical fast food is very interesting and funny as a choice of words, I like it! I think the future is not as black as we paint it here, because even music has its periods of stagnation. At least I personally feel that as music becomes incredibly accessible, everything starts to look like itself and everything sounds terribly samey, grey. It's quite possible that there will be, or maybe there already is, a movement that will try to reverse that state of affairs. It reminds me a bit of Rock In Opposition, which was just meant to stir up the waters. I think that stirring up the waters is a innate part of some artists.

ChatGPT

Rock In Opposition is a perfect analogy - back then it was also a reaction to unification and commercial pressure, which is exactly what streaming platform algorithms do today. We may indeed be in a period of stagnation, but that frustration may be the fuel for something new. And it makes historical sense, too. After every period of musical uniformity, there has been some sort of backlash - punk against the overproduction of the seventies, grunge against the sterile pop-rock of the eighties. Now we're in an age of algorithmic dominance, so the logical next step would be a movement to rebel against that. Whether that means a return to physical media, some new form of distribution outside of the big platforms, or just music that is so sonically radical that algorithms won't be able to categorize it properly. Do you think it might come more from the underground, or could it become something more mainstream as well?

MŽE

I don't think it's going to change that fast, at least not in the mainstream, because the status quo is the most comfortable for the labels, which probably benefit the most from it. They have full control over the capitalization, the business is beautifully quantifiable and predictable, which is what the major labels used to struggle with because they didn't know how to grasp it, say, 40 years ago. Nowadays the situation is completely opposite for them, and it's also supported by the fact that they are so dominant - I'm talking now mainly about giants like Universal Music Group. Money and the power that goes with it is such a powerful driver that it's not going to change from here. One possibility is either platforms like Bandcamp which seek die-hard music fans who are willing to support "their" artists. Perhaps there will be artists who absolutely refuse to release any music *digitally*, but will more or less only distribute it physically on the spot; of course that's not quite 100%, because someone can always come to the show, record it and publish it online; I'm more just thinking out loud right now, but maybe throwing away the Internet from it all is one form of a protest.

ChatGPT

Yeah, that makes sense. The mainstream certainly isn't going to change that fast, because the big players are perfectly comfortable with this system. As you say, they have total control, everything is perfectly measurable, capitalization is huge, and they don't have to take risks. But it's the resistance that may arise in smaller circles, with die-hard fans and artists who will want a completely different approach. For example, the model where the music would only exist physically and would only be available at concerts or in some exclusive form is quite interesting. Not only as a form of protest, but also as a way of giving value back to music - if you can't just put something on Spotify, suddenly it has a lot more weight. And Bandcamp, or something like that, where people buy music directly, is definitely the way to go. It's just a question of whether there are enough people who will support it enough to make it viable. Maybe a new format would help - something between physical and digital that would be harder to just copy and distribute for free. Can you think of anything that might work?

MŽE

And *that* is our irrational fear! The fear that for *any* music to work, millions of people have to listen to it. This fear is fed and abused by platforms like Spotify. But then again, millions of people don't go to painting exhibitions or photography exhibitions but those artists manage to make a living somehow. I think that's the wrong direction to go in: that for art to be successful, it has to be successful as a business that loads of customers. I have nothing against selling music as a nicely digestible product, but it doesn't have to be the only possible form.

ChatGPT

This is absolutely spot on! The current model is built on quantity - music has to be consumed en masse because individual listening is almost worthless. But music used to work very differently. It wasn't about how many millions of people hear you, it was about how much the music is valued by those who listen to it. The comparison to fine art is great. A painter doesn't need millions of viewers, he needs a few collectors to appreciate his work and pay for it. Music could work the same way - instead of chasing billions of streams, focus on a narrower but more committed audience who are willing to pay good money for music. And just as you say, this used to work. If someone bought an album for five hundred, it was a very different thing than today's model where literally pennies drop out of that one fan. So maybe the solution is just that mindset shift - that music doesn't have to be a mass product, but something more exclusive that people will appreciate. And maybe that will eventually lead to more interesting music, because artists won't be pushed into pleasing algorithms and giant audiences. So actually, the sooner musicians disconnect from that need to "be everywhere" the better for them. What model do you think would best support this? Something like patronage, where fans directly support their favorite artist, or more of a return to classic music purchasing, just in a more modern form?

MŽE

Traditional music buying will never come back in my opinion. That's one of the effects of the devolution, which Spotify is largely responsible for. It is an irreversible move. To retrain a person from the few pennies they're paying a month for *any* music to suddenly have only one album by one artist is now virtually impossible. I still see hope, though. I hope that at least a miniscule part of the music industry will somehow stand up and fight against this, because I think music is a natural part of human life and has been created even under very extreme conditions. Finally, I wanted to ask you if you know or know of anything that is moving in this direction. If there are any artists who have not only realized this, but are actively practicing it. The separation from Spotify, let's say.

ChatGPT

Yeah, I totally understand the frustration that the model where people used to buy albums is never coming back. And you're right - once most people get used to an endless catalogue for a few pennies a month, it's awfully hard to convince them to go back to paying for individual albums. That's the irreversible step that made music lose value as a product today. But it's exactly as you say - music has been and will continue to be made in the most extreme conditions, so it makes sense that eventually there will be a group of artists who say "enough" and start doing it their own way. And it's already happening to a lesser extent. One of the most obvious examples of this is King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard - not only do they make music completely on their own, but they give their albums away for free distribution and let their fans release them themselves. They release physical media in a variety of special editions and rely on a strong connection with the community. And while you can find their music on Spotify, they're not dependent on it - their fans are willing to pay them directly. Then of course there's Bandcamp, where a lot of indie artists actively bypass Spotify and rely on direct sales of albums and merchandise. Amanda Palmer of The Dresden Dolls is a great example - she's ditched the label altogether, using crowdfunding (Patreon) and making money by connecting directly with her fans. And then there are those who actively boycott Spotify. Take Neil Young, who pulled his music from Spotify due to dissatisfaction with the terms and conditions for artists, as well as the controversy surrounding misinformation on the platform. Taylor Swift tried it a few years ago too, pulling her music because she was bothered by how little artists were getting paid - but eventually came back because the pressure was too much. I think what you're saying is very important - it may not change the mainstream, but if a strong subculture develops that refuses to play by Spotify's rules and offers something different, it may attract more people over time. What do you think might be the trigger? What would it take to get people to start appreciating music again?

MŽE

Being physically at that artist's concert. There's no other option. As modern technology put people more and more away from physically visiting or spending time with that artist, the relationship to that art becomes more distant and weaker, too.

ChatGPT

Yeah, I totally agree. The personal experience is irreplaceable. Once you're at the show, you feel the energy, you see the artist in front of you, you share the moment with other fans - that's something no streaming service or algorithm will ever replace. And that's what builds that real relationship with the music and the artist. I also think that's what makes the difference between "consuming music" and "experiencing music". Streaming is passive - you put on a playlist and it runs in the background. But when you buy a ticket to a concert, go there, stand in the crowd, experience the atmosphere... you appreciate the artist so much more. Maybe that's the answer to the question of how to get out of this - if artists want to survive outside of Spotify, they have to build on playing live and getting fans to be willing to pay for just that personal touch.