A few weeks ago, bassist Jonas Hellborg announced on Facebook that he would be “leading by example” by removing all of his music from “so called digital distribution”, after receiving a meager payment from his distributor. While I wouldn’t necessarily count myself as a fan, the music I’ve heard (on Apple Music) is enjoyable enough – the kind of world fusion you’d expect from someone who recorded with John McLaughlin. Unfortunately, I won’t be buying Hellborg’s music in the future – not because I don’t like it, or because I don’t believe in supporting artists, but because it’s almost 2020.
I’m not saying there’s not a place in the world for physical media, but the record business is mostly a collector’s market these days. CDs, cassettes, and vinyl will never make a true comeback, because they are now, and forevermore, unnecessary chunks of plastic. I think it’s a bit naive and myopic of Hellborg to make this move, but he is an independent musician who I assume owns his masters and controls his own distribution, so it’s really his choice to make. Alas, Hellborg becomes one more example among many independent artists who have either convinced themselves or been led to believe that withholding their music from streaming services is the right thing to do. Meanwhile, the renowned music journalist Anil Prasad shared Hellborg’s post, along with the comment, “If any Innerviews readers read this and are aware of the problem and continue using these services, they are culpable.”
Before I completely unpack this statement, I should take a moment to thank Mr. Prasad. If he had wasted his time debating me in a subthread of a Facebook post that has already dropped off the radar, instead of just blocking me for having a dissenting opinion on the matter, this article would have never happened. Without the initial shock and disappointment of being banned from reading Mr. Prasad’s posts, followed by anger and a deepening desire for a chance to express my opinion, I probably would have just spent the past few weeks playing Death Stranding and skipped this whole exercise.
“If any Innerviews readers…” – I’ve followed Anil Prasad for years, read some of his work, shared some posts, and generally considered him to be a standup guy. I’m pretty sure I even shared my condolences when his cat died. “…read this” – check. “…and are aware of the problem…” – also check. “… and continue using these services…” – Apple Music, check. Spotify, check. “… they are culpable.”
Prasad points his finger directly at his readers and followers and blames them for the huge mess that is the music industry. I’m not privy to the demographics of the readers of his platform, Innerviews, but I’m going to safely assume that the majority of the people who read musician interviews are either non-musician music consumers or musicians (who are necessarily music consumers). My very first question when I read his post was, are we supposed to boycott streaming as artists or consumers? Are we wrong for subscribing to Spotify, distributing music to Spotify, or both? Since Prasad didn’t specify, I have to assume he means both.
Streaming is awesome for music consumers. The important thing to realize is that the streaming media paradigm is the inevitable result of accelerating technological progress. We can look back at the last 50 years and see the clear crash-and-burn trajectory of the recording industry. For decades, the major labels ignored their customers, continuing to charge high prices for plastic discs full of filler songs to music fans who mostly wanted one or two hits. In the background, these mega-corps legislated against the oncoming technology, making all efforts to maintain a death grip on the means of recording and distribution, until finally, mp3s and p2p file-sharing technology enabled a consumer revolt, aka Napster.
Tens of thousands of lawsuits targeting music consumers followed. Instead of learning from what was happening and adapting, the major labels, with the RIAA as their Gestapo, tried to maintain their control by force, with blinders to the real changes to come. Thus, streaming technology eventually arose not from the music industry, but from venture capital-funded technology companies like Spotify who saw the opportunity that the technophobic majors wouldn’t. Eventually, after years of negotiations, the major labels were brought into line as partners and investors, in exchange for rights to their catalogs. As a result, music fans finally have what they have been wanting for decades: the ability to listen to music on their terms, where and when they want, without cluttering their lives with $25 plastic discs full of songs they don’t like. Streaming services were able to pull the industry through the dark ages of rampant piracy because they offered a superior, legal solution to downloading mp3s. The streaming paradigm finally delivers the ultimate convenience and access to the majority of the history of recorded music, with none of the physical waste and a minimal fraction of the distribution costs.
Musicians are necessarily also music consumers. For students of music, recorded music is more than just entertainment – it is an obvious form of knowledge required for creating new music, and therefore it is important that recorded music is accessible to as many musicians as possible. As music recording technology continued to improve over the past few decades, we saw the means of production move from a limited number of high-end studios, to smaller independent studios, to bedrooms, to laptops, and beyond. Now we live in a time where a quality recording can be produced start-to-finish on a smartphone. As a result, there is exponentially more music being produced, to the point that physical ownership and access to the bulk of recorded music is impossible. It would take many months for a single person to listen to all of the tracks uploaded to Spotify on any given day. Thus, efficient discoverability of recordings requires a centralized catalog that can be searched based on metadata: artist, genre, BPM, musical key, affiliated keywords, etc. Streaming platforms are necessary and historically significant resources for musicians. For artists, DJs, music scholars, and educators who draw from the history of recorded music for technique and inspiration, there has never been a better way to access what they need. Expecting musicians to boycott streaming services as consumers is therefore self-defeating and silly.
The main streaming services have spent a lot of time and money making deals with the major labels in order to obtain the rights to stream copyrighted music in their catalogs. The major labels own a stake in Spotify and see significant revenue from streaming companies as a whole. Artists signed to contracts with major labels and most indie labels give up ownership of their masters and control over how their music is distributed. As an example, over 85% of the content available on Spotify is controlled by the major labels, with the majority of streams being generated by that content. My point here, of course, is that any artist with a chance of being even a blip on the statistical radar by choosing to boycott streaming services doesn’t have that choice to make. Beyond that, the average Spotify user listens to over 40 unique artists a week, so even a notable number of indie artists leaving the platform is unlikely to influence the subscription choices of most consumers. An indie boycott is never going to impact the streaming industry in any meaningful way.
The manifesto behind Prasad’s call for boycotting “Big Music” is a post from 2015 entitled “A Fair Music Streaming Model is Possible”, subtitled “Why Artists and Indie Labels Must Emancipate Themselves from Big Music”. tl;dr: streaming companies are mean, so we must form our own streaming company, forcing all of our fans to pay $50 a month so it’s fair. Actually, not even we… some altruistic person needs to materialize and start a new technology company that can compete with Spotify and Apple, while sharing 90% of their profits. Imagine, 4 years later and this cryptid of a company has still yet to reveal itself. So let’s imagine this scenario in an industry only slightly removed from our own. Suppose you’re a fan of documentaries, and maybe 20% of the shows you watch on Netflix are documentaries. Suddenly, all the doc filmmakers and distributors boycott Netflix and move exclusively to a new streaming company, DocFlix, which charges $50 a month. If you’re like the average consumer, you’re probably going to be a little pissed at Netflix, but not enough to give up the other 80% of the content you watch. You’re also going to be pretty upset at this unknown mass of filmmakers who are now making you jump through another hoop to see their film. And most of all, you’re likely to be very wary of DocFlix, the self-important startup that just took control of 20% of your watchlist and is extorting $50 more out of your “disposable income”. The point is, if you already have fans and listeners on Spotify and Apple Music, pulling your music is a big slap in the face of your actual customers. Suddenly albums are missing from their favorites, their playlists are all out of whack, and they’re blaming you, not “Big Music”. And as noted, the magical savior/alternative platform doesn’t actually exist, so you’re only reducing your availability and potential revenue.
Viewed through a different lens, Prasad’s call for a boycott is a lame attempt at applying flawed ethical consumption logic to commercial art. His proposed solution is essentially a “greener” streaming platform, like a Whole Foods for music consumers. This is not a real solution but simply an attempt to fight capitalism with capitalism, price-gouging consumers and inevitably creating the same elitist upper-class hipsterism which has been easily witnessed in other “compassionate capitalist” endeavors. Trying to earn a living wage isn’t the plight of the independent musician alone. Independent authors and filmmakers have also been impacted by the steady march of technology, as those industries make similar moves from ownership to access models. Living in any “culture hub” city in the US means working two jobs to afford renting a room in a house with 4 other people (who are all definitely sharing the same streaming accounts). It’s not just music streaming but life as an independent creative person that is increasingly not sustainable. Therefore, the ultimate solution isn’t any number of siloed boycotts and fair-trade movements; it’s subverting the current capitalist reality and demanding a system where everyone can live sustainably without expecting some benevolent art-loving tech guru to come along and save them.
Universal basic income, rent control, universal healthcare, expanded social programs, educational debt forgiveness – these are the kind of real solutions for sustainable living as artists we should be yelling about, not alienating fans and further reducing the few available income streams. Let’s stop complaining about Spotify and start getting our fans and fellow artists to support candidates and legislation that benefits us all. And in the meantime, meet your fans where they are, let them decide how to engage with your music, and give them other ways to support you if they choose.