Tech Won't Save Us - How Spotify is Built On Artist Exploitation w/ Liz Pelly

Episode Date: November 26, 2020

Paris Marx is joined by Liz Pelly to discuss how the Spotify model of streaming music continues a long trend of exploitation in the music industry and why musicians need to organize around a vision for a different world of music.Liz Pelly is a freelance writer and critic who has spent the past decade working with community arts spaces. She is also a contributing editor and columnist at The Baffler. Follow Liz on Twitter as @lizpelly.Tech Won’t Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Follow the podcast (@techwontsaveus) and host Paris Marx (@parismarx) on Twitter.Read the plan for the future of the show and supporter benefits on Patreon.Find out more about Harbinger Media Network and follow it on Twitter as @harbingertweets.Also mentioned in this episode:Liz’s work looks at many aspects of Spotify, including the model it’s pushing on musicians and increasingly on podcastersParis has written about how consolidation and the emergence of streaming is having similarly negative effects in film and televisionNaomi Klein explains how New Deal arts programs funded 225,000 musical performances which reached 150 million Americans — and much moreCherie Hu tweeted a diagram showing how different streaming and music companies have stakes in one anotherThe Verge obtained Sony Music’s contract with SpotifyHow Galaxy 500 and Pavement had random songs take off on SpotifySpotify CEO says artists need to record music more frequentlyHenderson Cole’s proposal for an American Music LibraryThe Union of Musicians and Allied Workers launched the Justice at Spotify campaignSupport the show

In a lot of ways, what streaming services are doing are sort of like allowing this already like very broken industry to continue existing. Hello and welcome to Tech Won't Save Us. I'm your host, Paris Marks, and this week my guest is Liz Pelley. Liz is a freelance writer and critic who has spent the past decade running community art spaces. She's also a contributing editor and columnist at The Baffler. In our conversation today, we look at Spotify and how the streaming model is affecting musicians and their ability to create art that enriches our broader culture. Our conversation is based on a column that she's written for a number of years at the Baffler which critically looks into Spotify and how it's

affecting not only the music industry but increasingly the podcasting industry as well. Our conversation today focuses on musicians and the long trend of exploitation that Spotify continues in the music industry to this day. The platform uses its power to ensure that it reaps the benefits of musicians' labor. This is a really important topic and it has some strong relationships to what we've discussed around the gig economy. There is a little bit of feedback in some of the audio, just so you're aware, but I think you'll have no problem understanding the really important points that Liz makes in this episode. As always, if you like the show, please

leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts and make sure to share it with any friends or colleagues or just on social media so we get that social proof so people can see that you like the podcast. And if you want to support the work that I put into making the show, you can go to patreon.com slash tech won't save us and become a supporter. Enjoy the conversation. Liz, welcome to Tech Won't Save Us. Hey, thank you so much for having me. It's great to speak with you. critically about Spotify for a number of years now in your column at The Baffler, always providing really timely insights into what is happening in streaming and with Spotify in particular. So obviously, I wanted to talk to you today about that model and how it's affecting

the music industry and artists in particular. And so I wanted to start by kind of getting a broad overview so we kind of understand what is going on here, right? So can you start by kind of getting a broad overview. So we kind of understand what is going on here, right? So can you start by describing what the key differences are between the Spotify model of streaming, the streaming model that is promoted by, say, an Apple Music, where they're not as dependent on, say, the streaming platform for revenue, but it's more to promote other types of products that they're selling. And then what the music industry was like before the streaming era and before streaming kind of dominated everything. To speak to your first point, I don't think that companies like Apple Music, Amazon, Google, or YouTube really represent anything significantly different or more artist-friendly than something like Spotify represents.

Over the years, I and several others have sort of written about how one way that you could think of Spotify as different from Apple Music and Amazon Music is that unlike Apple and Amazon, Spotify is not a hardware company. So they're not selling iPhones, laptops, or Amazon Alexas. Instead, they're sort of selling their value to users and also to Wall Street investors based more around their ability to predict your music taste or recommend music for certain moods and activities. These are sort of like their talking points and some of the ways that they have presented their narrative as a company over the years. Of course, there's tons of other things to be critical about when it comes to companies that are hardware companies and all of the exploitative and egregious offenses that those companies need to be accountable for. But as it stands, Spotify does not produce hardware. So most of

their value has come in other ways, or their asserted value, the ways that they've kind of like tried to position themselves to investors. So that's one way of looking at it. And then in terms of the relationship between streaming services and the music industry that existed pre-streaming in the early days of music streaming, which is, you know, around 2008 to 2011, depending on when the services became available for different markets. Streaming services sort of positions themselves as these saviors of the music industry, that they were returning the music industry to growth, and that they were democratizing the music industry. And a lot of people bought into this mythology, similarly to the way many throughout society have bought into

the mythology of, you know, tech companies in general as these democratizing forces. But over time, it's become really clear to a lot of people in a lot of different corners of the music world that these streaming services really just serve to represent and benefit the interests of major record labels and the types of mainstream artists that have always been served by the music industry status quo, and also that they're not the democratizing forces that they claim to be. And there are a lot of consequences for artists that aren't served by their models, as well as listeners too. Yeah, I think those are really essential points. On the first one about the differences between the different streaming services, you know, when Apple Music launched, and I feel like this is still a narrative that's still around today,

there was this idea that it was better because there was more human curation, and they were paying like marginally better than what you would get from a Spotify, right. And so the idea was, look, this is the good streaming service. So we can, you know, leave Spotify, which is the bad streaming service, and just go to Apple. And then we, you know, leave Spotify, which is the bad streaming service and just go to Apple. And then we're doing ethical music consumption now. Right. And this is all good for the artists. And you even had some of, you know, these bigger artists saying the same thing. They said, we would never put our music on Spotify, but we'll put it on Apple music because they are good for, for artists. Right. And so this really helped to benefit Apple and, you know,

these other streaming services that played by that slightly different model. But then when you also talk about the differences between streaming and what existed before, Spotify came a little bit later to Canada than say the United States and certainly Sweden. But I remember when it launched being like super excited. I was like, wow, you know, I can pay this much money. It's going to artists. I can access so much stuff. This is fantastic. And then over the years, I have found that the way that you approach music changes the kind of relationship between the listener and the musician changes because it's mediated through this platform that has certain incentives, right? And so that's the other key piece that I wanted us to establish before we really get any further. And that's how does, you know, moving to a streaming model change the relationship between, say, the platforms and the labels and the artists?

I think in terms of like, the question of like, how streaming has affected listeners relationships with music, streaming services put a lot of resources and energy into trying to kind of like market themselves as these places where you could go and pay one fee and have access to all of the music in the world and there's a lot of things to be critical regarding that the first one being that obviously all of the music in the world is not on spotify and there's a lot of interesting underground and non mainstream music that is not on these services. And then also, a lot of people who use these services do, you know, rely on the recommendations that they're given on the

front page or the different like curation channels that exists within the services. And it's important to remember how significantly influenced these things are by major labels and by anyone really that like has money to spend on promotion. It's been like pretty well documented the way that various mutations of what has historically been considered payola play out on platforms like this and then there's also just the reality that there are certain types of music that cater to like what is valuable to a platform like spotify so listeners to your podcast will be familiar with the reality that throughout the platform economy, platforms and various corporations have financial incentives to keep users engaged on their platforms. And they just

don't want you to leave their platform, they want to recommend you stuff that will keep you clicking and streaming and pressing like and like creating data for them. And the same thing exists on streaming services, like when you come to the front page, they want you to see stuff that you'll click on. So that has resulted in the sort of audio equivalent of clickbait. I and others have like written about this phenomenon as streambait.

You know, this is the thing that exists on streaming services. And there are certain types of playlist categories that keep people clicking and streaming. There's been sort of like rise of music that does well in the background, music tied to different like moods and affects and activities. So in order to have all of the major label music on Spotify, Spotify, when it launched, had to establish all of these contracts with the major labels. And those contracts that are renewed every few years or so are extremely secretive. There are very few people who know what the terms and agreements are

between Spotify and major labels. But what we do know is that the agreements between major labels and Spotify are part of the reason why advertising exists at all on Spotify and why there's advertising on the free tier. And it's also true that major labels, when they sign those contracts with Spotify, they're given free advertising space and a certain number of advertising placements. And there's also different types of like agreements regarding promotion and marketing and stuff like that. So major labels employ full time promoters similar the way like mainstream radio historically was that have like a direct in with people at major streaming services. But big indie labels have these sorts of relationships as well. But it's from conversations that I've had over the years,

it seems pretty obvious that like major labels have a much more direct in and also the other piece of the puzzle is that, you know, major labels also like partially own these services as well. So there's a pretty interesting graphic that Sherry Hugh, the music business reporter who runs this newsletter called Water and Music has made. And put the link in the show notes. Okay, yeah. So it's like this diagram showing the different major labels, Spotify, Tencent Music, Universal, Warner, Sony, and like the various financial stakes that they all have in each other. And I think that's like important to keep in mind as well. So in terms of like, and but then, you know, so for artists who are not on major labels, and also who are not on big indie labels, there's independent labels, grassroots,

people who run labels out of their houses. But then there's also these sort of like legacy indie labels that have been around since the 80s and 90s that have a bit more influence and sway within the music industry. And many of them comprise this group called the Merlin Network that Spotify has referred to over the years as like the fourth major or something. So they have, you know, significantly more access to these services than say, like, if a local musician in your town decided they were going to like take $300 and start a tape label and then like service their music to various services. And then major labels are like Universal, Warner, and Sony. And then historically, independent labels are like labels

that operate sort of like independent from the majors, but also independent labels historically have had like much more equitable terms. So there's like a standard independent label deal for artists, which is 50-50 after expenses. And that's not the case with major labels. Major label terms tend to be like much less transparent and more exploitative than that. That's really good to know, you know, and I think it gives the listeners a pretty good picture of how this larger ecosystem is constructed, right? But as you mentioned there, what Spotify is doing is kind of affecting the music industry and the incentives within the music industry, because there are some types of music that work really well on this playlist advertising oriented model, right? So can you describe a bit

how I guess the emergence of this model, the reliance on playlists over say artists or albums, and the need to keep people listening as long as possible, because that is how the most revenue is generated, then affects the type of music that is made. One thing I'll also like practice this by saying is that like the music industry status quo has always been like very exploitative and the music industry is sort of like founded on artist exploitation. And in a lot of ways, what streaming services are doing are sort of like allowing this already like very broken industry to continue existing. But in terms of like how it affects the way artists think about their own music, or the way it affects like the type of

music that is made, I've definitely had conversations with artists as well as independent record label owners who have talked about this like flattening effect and how the sort of music that does well on streaming services is like music that isn't too offensive that would like stream well in the background music that sounds like other music and music that would like fit well in a variety of different playlist contexts. So in some ways, you know, there have been examples of artists who have seen this play out within their own catalog, like looking at the types of songs that become popular on streaming services, because of the automatic suggestions that like autoplay after you listen to a record. There's like a pretty interesting story with the band Galaxy

500. And they've been releasing records since the 80s. And this random song that was never really a particularly popular song in their catalog catalog all of a sudden is their most popular song on spotify and the drummer of that band damon krakowski who is also a writer and part of the union of musicians and allied workers on his own blog like raised this question of trying to like figure out why this song all of a sudden was the most popular song of theirs on spotify and a similar thing recently happened with the band Pavement. Ultimately, what Damon discovered through conversation with people who work at Spotify and through some like digging of his own was that yeah, the song gained popularity

around the time when Spotify switched autoplay to automatically be set for listeners. So like you'd be listening to a record and when the record ended, you know, suddenly you would just get like automatic recommendations. And Damon thought about like the composition of the song and realized it was like the most normal song in their catalog, like just kind of like standard drum beat.

And he's the drummer of the band. So it's kind of interesting hearing him talk about it from that perspective. But I think having the perspective of musicians who have been releasing music for decades is really interesting, because it makes it a little bit more clear what type of music is boosted or recommended in a environment where the type of music that is being rewarded is like music that sounds like other music or music that works well in the background. And now that is sort of like the norm

for a lot of new artists upon release is the songs from their albums that are like being boosted on streaming services or playlisted or the songs that are playlist friendly. At the same time, there's always been forces within the music industry that have made like one thing popular over the other thing and like maybe historically it hasn't been like does this song do well on playlists or in the background but it's been something else and there have always been artists whose work has been overlooked because it didn't fit the you know needs of what the music industry mainstream or indie like wanted or was willing to put money and resources around and i think that

these conversations around what types of music does well on streaming or does well in the music industry raise sort of like bigger questions about how we decide what music has value and like how we decide like what music is important or worth supporting and that's like a whole other big conversation also it definitely is you know and it has always been the case that different ways that you know industries music industry in particular our structure are going to incentivize certain types of artistry, right? It's just that in the case of streaming, it does seem to be that there's this incentivization toward a more kind of standard homogenized listening experience, because that is then going to keep people engaged and passively listening for longer, which is, you know, what the platform is incentivized to deliver. But I think what you

talked about there, which is really interesting, is the point about exploitation, right? And the degree to which exploitation has always been a reality within the music industry. And what we're seeing with Spotify is just more of an evolution of that. And so I really wanted to look at the question of the artist as a worker, because naturally they are. And when we look at music and we look at art, we know that there has always kind of been a gig economy in the music industry. And now that kind of has been rolled out to many more industries through these tech platforms that, you know, have gained a lot of attention over the past decade or so, again, around the same time that Spotify would have been growing and emerging, right?

And so I feel like when we look at what Spotify is doing, it's both learning from an Uber in order to see how it can better control the workers that rely on its platform, in this case, musicians. But then we also see that, like Spotify's CEO is saying that artists need to produce an album every year or more frequent albums if they just want to survive in the modern music industry, because that's the new reality. So what does that tell you about the new pressures that are being created for artists as a result of these kind of changes that are happening. I think that it says a lot and what you mentioned about the gig economy and the sort of strangeness of a company like Spotify, almost like learning from companies like Uber and

sort of repackaging and selling the gig economy back to musicians through their own product. It's a lot to unpack considering the extent to which the gig economy as a concept has sort of like branded itself on the romanticization of gig work that musicians have always represented, which, you know, should say a lot about how exploitative music work has always been, or how like under resourced it has always been. But also, it does also shine light on just the complication of all of this for artists in the intersection of art and labor. So I think that the comments from Daniel Ek from this past summer, so over the summer, he did this interview where he talked about how in order to make it in the new music industry, artists cannot get away with just releasing one album every few years. and engagement or something like that. From a artist perspective, something that is really important to think about when it comes to the labor question is that a company like Spotify

doesn't see artists as its workers, it sees them as customers of its platform. And when something like Spotify sends this messaging to musicians that they need to be producing more and sort of trying to set the terms of their artistic creation, I think it really like is important for musicians to see it that way. And Spotify doesn't shy away from this. They talk in their own marketing materials or their messaging to investors about how they're a two-sided marketplace where on one hand, they're selling their products to listeners. And on the other hand, they're selling their products to artists. So it does raise a lot of questions. And I think it's, it's interesting, like thinking about it in the context of the like greater gig economy questions that have come up over the past year. And also, it's interesting thinking about it in the context of like ongoing

music, worker music, labor movements that are happening. It definitely is a way of thinking about music that requires artists to do more work. And also, it speaks to the overall devaluing of music and art that happens under this model. And ultimately, it is that devaluing that should tell us that we shouldn't rely on companies like this or really even on the music industry in general as our main source for funding art? I feel like when we reflect on what artists are creating, the music that they are producing and sharing with the public, it's a very important thing that they're doing, right? It's core to our culture. And without culture, without art, our lives would be like so devalued, right? And so then when we consider what the people who create this art are having to go through and the increasing pressures that they're being put under, it naturally leads one to question whether the system that we have established for the funding of art, for the creation of art, is really

one that is working in favor of the public good, right? Because in one of your pieces, you talked about how the Spotify model is creating disposable music, where there's just kind of new tracks constantly being created that can be cycled through playlists and then forgotten to make room for the new tracks that are going to be forgotten just as easily and we just kind of move on from there right and it felt to me when i was reading that like that was something that we're seeing broadly across the entertainment and media industries when we look at these streaming models right So what does that tell you about how that's affecting the broader culture? But then what does that mean for artists themselves to not really be able to put the time and the energy into a piece of art that means a lot to them and that they feel

is really communicating an important message, but instead has to just keep churning things out to kind of participate in this, I don't know, like hamster wheel or treadmill of content. You're totally right. And my main reaction is that it's completely unsustainable and that not only is it not the way forward, but coming up with ways to fix this broken model also isn't the way forward either. So as we established at the beginning of the conversation, right, like the issues like predate streaming, like these are issues of artist exploitation, and unsustainability. And I think also, like, there's these bigger conversations that also predate the streaming era, just that I know you're based in Canada, but like in the United States, like there's no funding for the arts in the United States, especially not like types of music other than sort of maybe like classical, which also the

streaming era presents lots of different types of issues to classical musicians as well and wouldn't want to overlook that. But you know, there's just a lot of types of music that gets completely missed by public funding. And we've sort of like, relied on those like really busted, like market based system to support music for so long. And even now, like, you know, streaming, obviously, isn't the answer. And we're starting to like, see the emergence of methods that in the short term are a lot better, right? Like, over the past year, we've really seen the conversation sharpen around the importance of okay, if there's a musician that you like listening to and want to support, you should go buy their music on Bandcamp, or you should go support them on Patreon, or you

should go buy their merch. Those are, I think, really good, like short term steps in the right direction towards taking our money away from streaming services and putting it towards artists. But that's not like a big picture, like political solution in any way. And I think that this is like a moment where I think it's important to think about like how even though those short term fixes are really helpful, it's still a system in which your musicians are only getting compensated if they're screaming loud enough on social media for people to like go cook on their band camp, or they're making music that a bunch of people want to like pay for with their five or $10. And I think that there are like bigger picture collective responses and collective

visions that could be more sustainable long term, such as public funding for non commercially viable art or big picture divestment from exploitative streaming services and community investment in new systems that value things like transparency and democratic decision making and worker ownership. Bandcamp is really cool, but I feel like there also should probably be something like Bandcamp that is musician owned and operated and run more like a worker owned co-op. And they both should exist. You know, there's also a really interesting proposal out there that people can find for a project called the American Music Library that this lawyer and music writer named Henderson Cole has drafted this proposal for that would be a taxpayer funded, like socialized

streaming service. I feel like it'd be really interesting to see like that be part of the picture. And it's not saying that any one of these alternatives or models would address all of the issues that music and music communities face. But I feel like if we're going to be talking about new models, like we should be thinking about new models that like don't involve corporate profiteering or tech companies skimming like 10% off of what musicians could be getting. And just like, we should be thinking about models that don't involve like advertising and corporate sponsorship in general. I completely agree with that, you know, and I would say music is not like a cultural industry that I'm as familiar with. But like,

I have echoed very similar points when it comes to the production of like film and television and kind of how those things should be funded and created and supported essentially, right? How we really do need more public funding, how we need to ensure that the development of this really essential culture is not just for the benefit of like some massive corporations, but that we're looking first and foremost at what is best for the artists themselves and also the public that is going to be experiencing and consuming that art, right? So I think those are really important and essential points. I wonder the current framework for how the music industry works is not working. You clearly established that. Do you have ideas for how we get

from here to there essentially? Because I feel like there is more organizing by artists themselves, by musicians to push back against this model. But do you see paths toward kind of achieving that better music industry that you're talking about with how things are currently laid out right now? I feel like I have like a few different responses to it, which is that in like the music industry as it stands, I'm not sure. But when you think more in terms of like the music world in general, and like, when I think of like the music world in general. And like when I think of like the music world versus the music industry, I also think of like musicians

that are like explicitly like not involved in like the mainstream music industry or like any sort of like commodified music industry or maybe like musicians that are making like music that has so little commercial potential that like they have never even really like thought about making a career off of music. But as it stands, a lot of those musicians are still being exploited by the platform economy, because it's so hard to avoid being like wrapped up in that

exploitation. Like a lot of musicians just want to like break even, you know, like they want to like put out a record and like not lose money on it, be able to like spend $1,000 on a release and like make it back. So I also think about like those types of musicians and how even though the music industry has this like deep history of corruption, like there are always been groups of artists that have like organized on a grassroots level to, you know, operate outside of it and to be able to kind of like create alternatives. And because there is that like precedent of history of like underground record labels and alternative media and things like that, like I do think that it is possible to like think about ways of distributing and like circulating music online that are making use of

technology in the best ways that we can while pairing that technology with economic models that serve artists a lot better so there's that right like i i think that there's definitely like historical precedent for like groups of musicians working together to create systems outside of the exploitative mainstream. ultimately even though aspects of current ongoing musician unionizing and worker movements where I'm not like completely behind like every single proposal I ultimately think that like the current efforts to unionize and collectivize and create like worker power within the music worlds are really powerful and interesting because I feel like those are the spaces where these types of like collective visions for a new way of circulating music online like could pop up or like could be conceptualized. Yeah, definitely. And there is a

campaign that was started recently that gained a lot of attention recently from the union of musicians and allied workers called justice at spotify which is seeking you know more transparency better pay from spotify things like that so i wonder like would you see that in you know what you were just describing maybe improving streaming services isn't like the end goal but this can serve as a way to bring musicians together to kind of build those collective structures that maybe later on can be used to imagine something bigger than just making Spotify respect musicians a little bit more and can actually start to try to develop these structures or alternatives that would actually challenge the core of the

Spotify model? The Justice at Spotify campaign was launched by Yuma, the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers. And I think that like efforts that are bringing musicians together in these collective settings, you know, the vision of Yuma is making a more just music industry, but also like in solidarity with all workers struggling for a more just world. And I feel like the existence of groups like this within music is really important. My main reaction to it is that I would way rather see musicians organizing around completely new models than trying to like fix these super broken ones, because I don't think there is any fixing these super broken ones because I don't think there is any

fixing these super broken ones I don't even think there's like putting a band-aid on the broken ones I am really skeptical of like opportunities to give corporate streaming services all of them any of them opportunities to like further brand themselves as artist-friendly because they're not and such like consolidated centralized power and money like in the music industry is ultimately really harmful, I think. At the same time, I want working musicians to be able to like survive. And this year, musicians have been squeezed so much without touring. It's obvious like why these conversations have come to such a head this year, because without touring, it's been made even more clear how unfair the whole system is.

Yeah, no, I think that's a fantastic point, right? And it makes me think of the larger gig economy that, you know, we're talking about now, right? There is built into that model, trying to ensure that workers are atomized and do not have these connections to each other so they cannot form these collective structures, right? And so even if these demands aren't perfect right now, it seems like there is value in what the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers is doing by at least getting this started by bringing workers together and then hopefully being able to further take advantage of that in the future, right? Yeah, I absolutely agree. And so I think also what you're bringing up there about the pandemic and how that has affected

musicians is really important. And so I was wondering if we could end by having you discuss a bit about what the pandemic has meant for musicians, how it has really affected musicians, because obviously without that touring income, it's been a really big hit, I would imagine for a lot of musicians. So how has the pandemic affected musicians? And if we are thinking about these alternatives, you know, obviously, we're all not musicians, I'm not a musician myself, how can people who respect what musicians do and want to promote a more vibrant culture support the work that musicians are doing, you know, even if these alternative structures don't yet exist? The pandemic has like, I think, similarly to the

effect that the year has had on a lot of different industries and corners of society, it has shown some light on pre-existing injustices and exploitations and inequities that like already existed. The music industry and musicians in general have already relied so heavily on touring and live shows because of this whole web of how exploitative the economy around recorded music has been for so long. And without shows, a lot of musicians have lost like the majority of their income. So I think like there's that. And then there's also the reality that a lot of small independent venues also are like really struggling and shutting down. And that is something that is like a really important part of this conversation to something that the pandemic has done within music is because it has sort of like laid bare all of these problems. It has also led to all of this organizing, which I think was like kind of stuff that musicians had been wanting to do for a long time.

But it's hard, like it's hard to organize musicians for a lot of reasons, including that in other workplaces, it's like, you know, you have a shared workplace, you have a shared boss, you have a shared manager, you organize around that. But because a lot of musicians are essentially freelancers, it's really hard to organize people that have like shared experiences, but not like exactly the same workplace. And also another complication that I think is like interesting to point out about the difficulty of organizing musicians is that like musicians all have like and bosses that they answer to, whether that be like their literal manager, their label, the various streaming services that pay them. But then other musicians that are more successful, like our bosses, and they employ other musicians and people who work for them. So generally, because there's such like a wide spectrum of

practices and ways of operating and doing business within music, like it can make it really hard to organize them. That said, like the pandemic and the year 2020 and everything that is going on this year, clearly was like a galvanizing force to get musicians to like organize because in addition to the union of musicians and allied workers, you've also seen other projects pop up like the music workers alliance in new york and there's also been like organizing and marching being done by like the afm musicians in in new york and probably other places too so there's been like a lot of musician organizing this year that has been like really interesting and i think

that that is a good thing and then the last part of the question is like, what can listeners do? I think that's something that's really important is like pressuring elected officials to care about music as like part of the arts, but also to like care about musicians that are not just making like commercially viable music. So I also think that that encompasses getting elected officials to care about like community art spaces and like art spaces that will be like accessible to musicians who historically have not had access to space like community art spaces. And ultimately, it's like super related to all these other issues, because something that has like come closer into focus is like the relationship between musicians ability to tour and play shows and have access to venues and the relationship between musicians ability to like make a living off of their recordings stepping back for and trying to give a more direct response to that question thinking of what is something that if there's a listener who wants to more directly support the musicians that they care about, or maybe try to have like a more

interesting relationship with the music that they listen to than solely streaming, it's, you know, maybe an obvious answer. But I think that something I've been doing throughout the pandemic is rebuilding my mp3 library. I mean, you know, I'm not saying like delete your account or whatever, but like, I think there's something to be said for rebuilding your MP3 library, like buying music, either through Bandcamp or from record labels that you're interested in, you know, just having a library of MP3s that you listen to. I think that there's a deeper relationship that you'll have with the music that you're listening to.

And also if you're buying it from the artist, you'll be compensating them fairly. So in the short term, I think rebuilding your mp3 library is a good idea. I have also been thinking about that question myself, because at this point, I've been using streaming services for a number of years. And I've been considering how I want to stop essentially, or like cut back on it, like cancel my subscription. And then maybe occasionally look on the free tier if I need to like really see something that way. And I've asked a number of people now and they seem to agree with what you're saying, right? The best thing really to do if you really want to support artists and the artists that you like, and whose music that you listen to a lot is really just to buy their music, rebuild your library, and go to

their shows and things like that when that becomes something that's possible. Obviously, this is a huge topic. There are so many aspects of it that I'm sure we didn't touch on. Is there anything that I didn't ask you that you think it's important for the listeners to understand about, say, the streaming business model or, you know, just what's important for the listeners to understand about, say, the streaming business model or, you know, just what's happening in the music industry right now? I think that actually something that is like really important for listeners to think about is actually like how this conversation connects to other conversations that have happened like on this podcast. So while I was listening to other episodes of your show, like listening to your

conversation with Tim Wong was like really illuminating for thinking about like the role of advertising in the streaming model and listening to the conversation with like Vina Duval is like really illuminating for thinking about like these issues around how the way musicians operate within the streaming economy is related to like labor issues with the platform economy in general. And the conversation with Evan Greer was really interesting, too, because these issues around whether platforms should take accountability for the content that is published on them is something that's like increasingly conversation happening in regards to Spotify, as there's like more podcasts on the platform. So I think ultimately, what I would like just want to be sure to know is that like in the greater context of this conversation of like, you know, tech won't save us, there's this like bigger picture that music is plugged into. I completely agree with that. And I would recommend everyone to, you know,

pay attention to your work and to read your columns for the Baffler so that they can find out more about how this works and about how Spotify is affecting artists and, you know, other aspects of, I guess, like the audio economy or whatever you want to call that. Liz, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for sharing your insight and your knowledge with us. Yeah, no problem. Thank you for having me. Liz Pelley is a freelance writer and critic, as well as a contributing editor and columnist at The Baffler. You can find links to some of her great columns on Spotify in the show notes, and I highly recommend you check them out for a critical perspective on the streaming company. You can also follow Liz on Twitter at Liz Pelly. You can follow me at Paris Marks, and you can follow the show at Tech Won't Save Us. Tech Won't Save Us is part of the Harbinger Media Network, a group of left-wing podcasts that are made in Canada. And if you enjoyed the episode and you want to support the work that I put into making the show every week, you can go to patreon.com slash tech won't save us and become a supporter.

Thanks for listening.