I think that balance of power has shifted from the artists to consumers which is driving down direct artist pay. I’ve still got the same amount of time each day to listen to music before streaming services existed, but now I’m afforded so much choice in music that each song/artist must compete harder for my attention. There’s always been way more talented artists than I could possibly listen to, but with Spotify I can now actually get the music to my ears. Now the limit is my time. All of a sudden, each artist is now competing with every other artist (and not just the big ones, either!) because of the new streaming distribution model. It seems natural to me that the price is going down.

The new streaming model also isn’t going away because it’s changed the way consumers engage with music. Before I would have to gamble on CDs/records in a pretty high-friction process. You would pay for the big names because you knew they would put something quality out, so it wasn’t as risky to buy their stuff. Now the cost for me to switch to other songs is basically 0, so I’m much more easily able to find stuff I like.

I’d argue that this new streaming model is incredibly valuable and warrants Spotify’s high valuation. Though, I agree with your sentiment here. Artists and their music power Spotify, so it seems fair that they get the lions share of value. Right now, it doesn’t feel like that. However, I think in the long run artists will win because their music is truly inimitable. Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Tidal, etc. are all fiercely competing on this distribution model. I haven’t seen a single feature that can’t be copied on any of these platforms. On the other hand, it’s basically impossible to copy another artist’s music (and make real money). Over time, I think streaming services’ margins will slim down because they must compete on price if they can’t compete on unique features. This will ultimately allow more artists to earn more money which is something I think we both can agree is what we want out of the music industry.