The people have spoken.

Last week, on the heels of promoting my email-list-building challenge, I asked this list a simple question:

What should I write about?

Well, you guys came through, as you so often do. You sent in a solid volume of responses, and your two most common answers were:

1. Write about Spotify / streaming promotion.
2. Write about how to make money from music.

There was a smaller group in favor of social-media-related stuff, and an even smaller group who kindly said that they wanted more of my philosophical rambling. Sadly, there was literally nobody who wanted me to write about Pittsburgh sports.

All of this has been duly noted.

Today, I won’t give you a whit of commentary on the horrifying possibility that Aaron Rogers may be the starting quarterback for the Steelers in 2025.

But I will give you a bit of commentary on Spotify’s latest Loud & Clear report, the headline of which is this:

Is Spotify’s report a purple piece of self-congratulatory propaganda? Undoubtedly.

Does it also point toward the idea that Spotify really does do some genuine good? Well…

Here’s my take.

I’ll start with this: I think streaming has probably had a net negative impact on the way people engage with music.

It’s incentivized the creation of bland, playlist-perfect music. It’s led to less active listening and low payouts. It’s displaced music almost entirely from the physical world.

But to be fair, this trend isn’t new. It’s not limited to Spotify, specifically, or even to streaming in general. Trace the rise of music technology over the last couple of centuries and I think you can see it clearly coincide with a decline in how we value music.

For example:

Before we could record music, to listen to it was to experience it as it was made. You sat for a symphony; you stood to sing in church. This demanded presence – maybe the most valuable thing a person can give.

Then we could record music, and it became a physical thing you could keep on a shelf. Sometimes, as in the case of so many vinyl records, the physical thing was in itself beautiful, but this was mostly the after-image of music’s value. The product was no longer really communal.

Then music became something you could fit into your pocket.

Then it became a stream in the ether.

Today, it no longer requires presence to listen to music. It doesn’t even require a penny.

I don’t blame Spotify for this falling arc any more than I blame Candy Crush for my phone addiction. Spotify didn’t start the wave; they only rode it, the same way other companies will ride it long after they’re gone. Still, they’ve paddled with the current rather than against it, and for that, they’re culpable.

But set all of that aside for a moment, and I think it’s pretty clear that Spotify has done two things that are genuinely good, both of which are trumpeted loudly in their report. 

1. They’ve restored some monetary value to music.

Napster almost nuked the whole possibility of paying for music to the ground. But they didn’t, and for that, we largely have Apple and Spotify to thank. Sure, our tech overlords saved the industry so that they could profit from it – but they did save it.

(Judging by the self-congratulatory tone of every piece of press Spotify has ever put out, it’s clear that they would very much like us to thank them for their sacrifice.)

As far as I know, Spotify is not lying when they say that they paid $10 billion to the music industry, or when they say that half of that total ($5 billion) went to indie artists.

So two things are true: Artists should be paid more than they are, and my word $5 billion is a lot of money.

To have that go to indie artists is a genuine good.

2. They’ve given more people more power to distribute music.

I think that the third section of Spotify’s report is fair and insightful. They write that there are 12 million uploaders to Spotify, while at “the peak of the CD era, only a few thousand artists had their music on the shelves of record stores.”

In other words, the reason that more people than ever are complaining about not making money from music isn’t just because the system is newly bad. It’s also because there are more people than ever making music.

Imagine if you had a similar influx of participants in any other industry; of course compensation would get weird.

And, on the other hand, imagine if you were trying to distribute music in 1960. Your chances of reaching an audience would be slim.

There are drawbacks that’ve come with all of this, but the genuine good is that it’s never been easier to get your music heard by people you don’t personally know. 

I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll end with a final thought.

It’s not even my own thought; it’s a headline I found while reading through coverage of Spotify’s report.

(“Everyone’s making loads of money but don’t point the finger at us if you’re not.”)

That’s brilliant, not least because it incisively sums up why so many of us can’t stand Spotify. They’re like the quarterback who takes all of the credit when his team wins and gives his teammates all of the blame when he loses. You could say that they have the public persona of Aaron Rogers.

I’m sorry. This is getting objectively bad.

(I don’t know Aaron Rodgers. I’m sure dogs love him, and for all I know, he’s a wonderful guy. I just find most of the stuff he says on the Pat McAfee show to be grating.)

Anyway, whether you made one million dollars or one measly penny from Spotify last year, here’s wishing you the good luck to have your music heard by people who love it.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

– Jon