While on her recent tour, Icelandic singer-songwriter Björk expressed her distaste for the current state of the music industry in an interview with Variety, claiming streaming culture has ruined the music industry, specifically citing Spotify. But, how could something that revolutionized the music industry also plague it?
Music streaming has been around for years before the creation of streaming services. In 1999, Napster was created, a website that allowed users to download and share music files for free. Despite the site being shut down in 2001 due to legal disputes, it laid the groundwork for a dramatic change in the relationship between music consumers, producers and the artists themselves.
However, what initially appears to be a conduit for an easier connection between listeners and creators has actually come to harm the way the music industry operates. Before online streaming, music was accessible one way: physically. Whether this was attending a live concert or buying CDs, the act of going out of your way to enjoy music was more involved than a subscription to a service, and it was possible to earn a living off that.
How does something like Spotify compare to that?
Well, according to Variety, Spotify pays about $0.005 per stream of a song — money that must go through production companies first before the artist can get paid. On the higher end of this, according to Statista, Amazon Music pays about $0.008 per stream.
The unfortunate reality of this is that unless an artist is constantly topping the charts in streams, they aren’t making that much money.
As a result of this, the best way for an artist to make a living in their profession reverts to the physical medium, but in a world that has become so reliant on technology and placing the power in the individual consumer, this is no longer feasible. For example, according to NBC News, there has been a sharp decrease in ticket sales for artists who aren’t as big as someone like Taylor Swift, accompanied by rising ticket prices, which has forced many artists to cancel shows altogether.
If the solution of returning to physical media and attempting to make money normally through streaming services isn't feasible, then where does that leave artists to make their money?
The answer, of course, is social media. Have you ever scrolled through Instagram and been annoyed by a song that just won’t go away? Do you feel like you can’t scroll without hearing the same hook from a song? That’s probably because the song is trending; it captivated general audiences and increased the popularity of the artist, even if for just a little bit.
It feels like artists have begun to craft their songs to trend on purpose, writing less for the sake of expressing their passions and more to make sure that TikTok audiences will use the same 15 seconds over and over and hopefully push their song to the top charts on streaming services.
We’ve arrived at a crossroad — one where musicians have to choose between making music for the sake of passion, understanding that they will not be able to support themselves on their music alone, or engineering songs to become trendy.
Art loses its soul when pressed into a corner like this and loses its diversity in the process. If the only songs that make money are the ones that sound like the top five artists at any given time, the possibility of exploring new genres greatly diminishes.
The most disappointing aspect of this is that in theory, streaming services should have been an easy gateway to new music, genres and artists, and to a degree it still is. Many smaller artists consistently upload new music, but the possibility of their success ultimately depends on the random chance that their music makes it to the mainstream social media audience.
The more we limit artistic independence, the more we limit our voices. Expression through music is important, and it shouldn’t be reserved for just the most popular voices.
Andres Arguello is a UF English and psychology junior
