In the gilded era of music streaming, millions of tracks are available at our fingertips. A few clicks, and the world of sound becomes accessible, boundless, and instant. Yet beneath the shimmering surface lies a system that many argue is fundamentally broken.
It is a business model that disproportionately benefits corporations while exploiting the very artists who make it possible. This is not merely a technological evolution, it has been an industry-altering revolution. And like most revolutions, it is riddled with winners and losers. The problem? The losers are often the creators, the people who pour their lives into the songs that shape ours.
THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE, BUT THEY DO HURT
Let’s start with the grim math. Spotify, the dominant player in music streaming, pays artists a paltry sum per stream. Estimates suggest it hovers around $0.003 to $0.005 per play. For perspective, an artist needs roughly 250,000 streams just to earn $1,000. That might not seem impossible for household names, but for the legions of independent musicians carving their path, it is a demoralizing reality.
The payout model exacerbates these inequalities. Instead of rewarding artists directly based on the listening habits of their fans, Spotify pools all subscription revenue and divides it based on total streams across the platform.
In other words, a listener’s basic monthly subscription is likely funding music they have never even heard. This pro-rata system disproportionately rewards the bigger stars of the music world while leaving smaller, niche artists fighting over scraps.
For independent musicians who might amass a respectable 10,000 or even 100,000 streams on a release, the returns are unsustainably low. The result? A system that thrives on volume but undervalues art.
ALGORITHMS OVER ARTISTRY
Spotify’s model is not just about dollars, it is about dictating what gets heard. Central to the platform is its algorithm, a digital tastemaker that prioritizes familiarity and mass appeal. It decides which songs land on curated playlists, the holy grail of exposure in today’s music industry.
Artists not deemed algorithm-friendly are sidelined, their work buried in the depths of the platform, unheard and unappreciated. This creates a self-reinforcing loop: popular songs get promoted, gain more streams, and become even more popular.
Meanwhile, experimental, genre-defying, or simply less commercial artists struggle to break through. It is a homogenizing force, favoring what is safe and predictable over what is daring and original, like music was before the Internet era.
For the listener, this presents easy access to catchy earworms and nostalgic comfort without building any personal attachments. For the industry, it is a narrowing of creative possibilities, a discouragement of risk-taking that has long been the lifeblood of musical innovation that allowed performers of character to grab the spotlight.
THE DEVALUATION OF MUSIC
In its quest to make music universally accessible, streaming has inadvertently devalued it. What was once a tangible product, like a vinyl record, a CD, or even a digital download, has become an intangible service. And when something is always available, its perceived worth can be lost.
Gone are the days when fans eagerly awaited an album’s release, queued outside record stores, and pored over liner notes. Now, an artist’s new work is just another entry on a streaming service that holds a never-ending playlist, its significance reduced to whether it fits the mood of a workout or a dinner party.
For artists, this shift is devastating. Albums, once the centerpiece of artistic expression, are now often seen as mere content, a collection of songs to be consumed piecemeal rather than as a cohesive whole. The focus has shifted from creating meaningful art to crafting songs that can stand alone, rack up streams, and appeal to the algorithm.
THE REAL COST OF FREE MUSIC
Spotify’s business model relies heavily on its free tier. That service allows users to stream music without paying, subsidized by advertising revenue. While this democratizes access, it also sets a troubling precedent: the idea that music is, or should be, free.
For the average listener, this might seem like a win. For artists, it is often anything but. Advertiser dollars pale in comparison to subscription revenue, meaning that artists earn even less from streams by free-tier users. In addition, the ubiquity of free streaming undercuts other revenue streams, such as digital downloads and physical album sales.
The result is an economic paradox: music has never been more widely consumed, yet many artists have never been worse off financially. The very platform that promised to empower musicians has instead trapped them in a system where success is measured not by artistry but by streams. Even then, the rewards are meager.
THE HUMAN TOLL OF SPOTIFY’S PROFIT
Behind the cold statistics is a deeply human story. Musicians dedicate years to honing their craft, investing time, money, and emotion into their work. Yet many find themselves unable to make a living wage from their art, forced to juggle multiple side hustles or abandon music altogether.
This is not just a loss for the artists — it is a loss for the music-listening public. When creators cannot afford to create, the cultural landscape suffers. Society risks losing the voices that challenge us, inspire us, and push us to see the world in new ways. We risk a future where music is no longer a calling but a side gig, where innovation gives way to conformity.
SPOTIFY’S BUSINESS MODEL NEEDS FIXING
So what is the solution? Several ideas have been proposed, each with its own merits and challenges. Yet it is up to Spotify to implement, and they have shown that their best interest is not aligned with their consumers – who are also data mined as a revenue stream.
One promising alternative is the user-centric payment model. Under this system, subscription fees would be divided among the artists that are actually listened to, rather than being pooled into a massive pot. Studies suggest this approach could provide a fairer distribution of revenue, especially for niche and independent artists.
Another option is greater transparency. Many artists do not fully understand how streaming revenue is calculated or why their earnings are so low. Platforms like Spotify could demystify their payout systems, empowering musicians to advocate for themselves and demand better terms.
Beyond technical fixes, there is also a critical cultural shift that needs to happen. Listeners must recognize the value of music and the labor that goes into creating it. Supporting artists directly through merchandise, live shows, or crowdfunding platforms can make a tangible difference. It is a choice to pay for streaming rather than relying on free tiers.
Finally, there is a role for policymakers and industry leaders. From revisiting copyright laws to establishing minimum payout standards, there are structural changes that could help level the playing field. But these require collective action and a willingness to prioritize creators over corporate profits.
AN AGE OF DREAMS AND ARTISTS
It is easy to take music for granted in an age where it is so readily available. From the advent of the internet and using Napster to download free MP3s, the music industry has faced waves of disruption over the past couple of decades. The ease with which listeners can consume music on Spotify has blinded the public to the struggles of those who make it.
Behind every song is an artist with a story, a dream, and a right to be fairly compensated for their work. As listeners, we hold more power than we might realize. By choosing how we consume music, and who we support, we can help shape the future of the industry. It is a small step, but it is a step that matters.
While the current system might be broken, it is not beyond repair. And it can become more sustainable. For the sake of music, and the artists who make it, it is time to demand something better from Spotify.
© Photo
Anna Pasichnyk (via Shutterstock)
