Recently, Taylor Swift pulled off her entire discography on Spotify. In a previous article on Wall Street, she said that streaming is one of the things that is, to paraphrase, not helping the music industry, along with piracy and file sharing. This recent development is sparking a debate on whether or not streaming music online is helping the industry.
From the point of view of an avid music listener and music sharer, and Spotify user, I respectfully disagree with Taylor Swift. I think streaming music online is helping the industry. It provides and, in some cases, creates access to music that iTunes or physical album sales cannot provide. It gives everyone who has internet access the opportunity to listen to an artist's music legally.
Before I was hooked in Spotify, I accessed music through downloading albums via torrent, despite knowing that this is illegal, and that artists deserve to be paid for the music they create. I did this because, frankly, I don't have the luxury of spending money on music. If I bought all the music I listen to, I wouldn't have enough money left for food or even clothing.
When Spotify came out, I stopped downloading music via torrent because I had access to music--access that the artist allowed and is getting paid for. According to an article by Time, Spotify pays "less than one cent per play, between $0.006 and $0.0084, to be exact."
Spotify also gave and is giving me access to listen to artists I've never listened to before. It gives me, as a music fan, an opportunity to decide whether a certain artist's music suits my taste or not. Whether I will continue listening to them or not. This is important because it allows less well-known artists, or those who are starting out, to widen their fan base. This also allows me, as a fan, to recommend the music I like to others, and give others the chance to listen to said artist easily--without the need of getting on a computer to download said artist's music or sharing it through a flash drive. This widened access to an artist's music creates or increases demand, not only for album sales but also concert ticket and merchandise sales.
To illustrate: I discovered Chvrches for the first time through a YouTube music video of Mother We Share. I was instantly hooked to their music and I wanted to listen to everything they created. But putting their videos on loop is tiring, and not all of their songs had videos. But when Spotify came out, and Chvrches' album Bones of What You Believe and other songs were on it, I had a chance to regularly listen to their music. I even created a playlist which I can click easily to get my weekly Chvrches fix or which I can share to my friends. So when I found out that they were performing live in the Philippines, I instantly bought a ticket, regardless of whether a friend was going with me.
I am not a Taylor Swift fan (and yes I already listened to her songs on Spotify, but I am not so amused by her) so I am not judging her by her music. But to even out the debate, I asked a friend whoa Taylor Swift fan and she had this to say: Taylor pulling out of Spotify creates a message that she is confident that her loyal fan base would still support her (and buy her music) but it also alienates other people. It limits the opportunity to widen her fan base.
If Taylor Swift's purpose in removing her music from Spotify (but retaining it on Spinnr, another music streaming site in the Philippines) is to increase album sales--whether digitally or physically, I think such a move is counterproductive. In doing so, she has forced (in a way) those who wanted to listen to her new album 1989 but doesn't want to pay to download it via torrent or get it from someone who did.
The thing she wanted to avoid has come back to haunt her. So we're back to square one.
The author is not affiliated with Spotify or any music streaming site. Nor has she gained any advantage or benefit by writing this seemingly pro-Spotify piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment