It's important to give some credit to the role major labels play in the industry. It might not be the best theoretical system, but practical limitations mean this is something of a second best solution, it is feasible, and a world without a major label oligopoly might not be as rosy as imagined.
Majors might appear as obstacles in the latter stages of the distribution chain, sure, but earlier on they play a key role in ensuring the masses - that's not necessarily you or I but fans of popular music - get the very best. That's the best in talent, from song-writing to singing to producing to touring. For that, an institutional arrangement promising immense returns to those at the top is a decent incentive structure for distilling what gets to us. And even if you look further down the spectrum at the indie side of things, you might notice it mimics what the oligopolies do.
You hear about Bieber as a product of YouTube and yes, streaming was key to his success. But without Scooter Braun's contacts on the industry side of things, the conversations those facilitated behind the scenes, would Bieber have become the Bieber 'we' have come to know and love?
In the end, the music listener's quality of life has improved. For artists, it's tough out there but that's nothing new. The circumstances have changed but fame and money are still on the table for those willing to put skin in the game and lose 99 times out of 100. For those more concerned with the love of it all, they can rest assured their message is getting out to more people than ever (if it's worthwhile). It may not be the best conceivable scenario, but I don't see it doing music much harm longer term. If anything, expect more killer less filler.
And for fans of live music, it's never been better. The prices might be higher but so is the standard, the choice, the accessibility.
For Spotify, the road ahead is somewhat hazy and needs to be navigated as such. A few years of loss making activity make sense if it keeps growing, keeps hammering out deals, and creates the bulk of its value a number of years down the line.
Majors might appear as obstacles in the latter stages of the distribution chain, sure, but earlier on they play a key role in ensuring the masses - that's not necessarily you or I but fans of popular music - get the very best. That's the best in talent, from song-writing to singing to producing to touring. For that, an institutional arrangement promising immense returns to those at the top is a decent incentive structure for distilling what gets to us. And even if you look further down the spectrum at the indie side of things, you might notice it mimics what the oligopolies do.
You hear about Bieber as a product of YouTube and yes, streaming was key to his success. But without Scooter Braun's contacts on the industry side of things, the conversations those facilitated behind the scenes, would Bieber have become the Bieber 'we' have come to know and love?
In the end, the music listener's quality of life has improved. For artists, it's tough out there but that's nothing new. The circumstances have changed but fame and money are still on the table for those willing to put skin in the game and lose 99 times out of 100. For those more concerned with the love of it all, they can rest assured their message is getting out to more people than ever (if it's worthwhile). It may not be the best conceivable scenario, but I don't see it doing music much harm longer term. If anything, expect more killer less filler.
And for fans of live music, it's never been better. The prices might be higher but so is the standard, the choice, the accessibility.
For Spotify, the road ahead is somewhat hazy and needs to be navigated as such. A few years of loss making activity make sense if it keeps growing, keeps hammering out deals, and creates the bulk of its value a number of years down the line.