Bjork Slams Spotify and Streaming as ‘Probably the Worst Thing That Has Happened to Musicians’

25 comments

1. The worst thing that has happened to musicians are greedy labels.. of course streaming won’t get you anything if most labels are known to take up to 90% of net sales. Not even talking about musicians not owning the rights/master to their own creations.

2. Spotify is awful

3. [deleted]

4. she’s not wrong.

5. Not ‘probably’ — ‘definitely’.

6. Spotify is terrible. Bjork is also terrible.

7. Yes, Spotify is the worst. I wish/hope more musicians would use Bandcamp or some site like it.

8. That may be true but I’m not going back and listening to CDs lol

9. Great for me though

10. Music has never been so easy to listen to, but it’s also way easier to produce and distribute now. Basic supply and demand, artists can’t expect to make the same money when there’s other alternatives. Like okay you don’t want your music to be streamed there’s a million other artists waiting for recognition, go find some other way to make yourself money. I don’t feel bad for the artists because they don’t feel bad for the listener when they were/are getting screwed

11. It’s amazing for music lovers. The old system with record studios wasn’t good either.

12. You know what’s funny, I listen to independent bands that don’t constantly bitch about Spotify, nor do they have to sell their concert tickets for hundreds of dollars and they’re making a living off of their art, some even doing extremely well! It’s almost like it’s labels taking all of the money or something!

13. She’s literally the worst thing that happened to music !

14. I hate the word slam

15. Is she too young to remember Napster?

16. I’ve gotten to know several small artists through Spotify who I’d otherwise have no idea about.

17. Oh, because napster and torrents were so much better. We should go back to that then.

18. Well
    How do you expect to make money from streaming when:

    1) you’re giving majority of revenue to your record label

    2) there’s a tons of artists and people r paying either nothing w/ ads or up to $10/month for music… so that has to be split among the streaming service and other artists

    It allows you to get your music to the masses, gain new fans, and make money performing live.

19. Fuck them, if you became a musician expecting to be rich, I don’t want to listen to your music.

20. Did she forget Napster?

21. Spotify is a tech company. Not a music company.

22. Did she hear about what Puff was doing?

23. This all falls under the category of social media. They are all toxic in one way or another. But it’s made in America so it must be great.

24. It might be the worst thing that has happened to a very specific type of musician. But not most musicians. More people hear my band’s music in the Spotify era than I ever would have managed in the DIY “hand out tapes” era. Do I make even one fraction of a penny? Nope. But that was never the point.

    I think Spotify is probably bad for Bjork and people in that layer of the pop music stratosphere. Every kid in college had her Post and Homogenic albums and she probably made good money. Now they would just stream Army of Me 1,000,000 times and she’d get $1500. But she needs to sell recorded music to make money. That description doesn’t fit the vast majority of musicians.

25. They just need to distribute money more fairly

    If I spend £10 one month and only listen to Bjork, she should get all my money.

    As it is, my money is split over everyone. So I’m paying Taylor Swift even though I’ve never listened to her.

    If they split our fees over the people we actually listen to then smaller artists would actually get money from their fans and the big artists aren’t going to notice because they’ll still get gazillions.

Comments are closed.