You beat me to it. But I want to say it like this: This is music by people who don’t care about musicians, for people who don’t care about music.
From a creative viewpoint, it’s fine, I think.
However, it’s still problematic for career musicians, in at least two ways:
-
Spotify doesn’t pay per play in a precise manner. They pay more like an old collection agency. They distribute the money they have made available for payout such that if your songs haven’t hit some threshold, you wont actually get paid because the money already got paid to the people with more plays.
-
Spotify is pushing its playlists, so listeners are more likely to play the music Spotify doesn’t have to pay out for, whilst at the same time taking the listeners attention away from music that could have lead to a musician getting paid. As they are one of the top three streaming services, this is a significant attack against all other musicians that had been told “get on the streaming services for reach and income”. In the past, radio supported casual listening, but radio had to pay fees to collection agencies, and thus more musicians would get paid by the attention (or lack-of-attention) economy. It was a system that was a little more fair to musicians.
(yes, I know I used collection agencies in both a positive and negative mode in this message. The music industry has always tried to drive down the cost of music making except for the insane 70s and 80s period where it seemed to actively encourage extravagance around the higher grossing artists)