James Blake’s music subscription model is a fantasy that disadvantages fans and musicians
As a recording artist and designer, I’ve spent years thinking about digital music platforms and how they could be better for artists and fans. The current all-you-can-eat subscription model of Spotify, Apple Music and co is disenfranchising artists – the outcome a diminishing of value for musicmakers and subconsciously for fans, turning music into a commodity that seems free, even worthless.
If music doesn’t cost enough, surely the answer is to pay more. That doesn’t mean you should pay more to Spotify – the model of chucking all the income in a big pot and dividing it proportionally between the most popular artists feels, to many, like a stitch-up by the major labels. Direct support of artists is definitely the way forward. But what is the best way to support them? Some will say buy merch and tour tickets, both potential loss-makers, while MP3 download figures are ever dwindling. Others, such as James Blake, have suggested individual subscription models.
Earlier this month, the British producer went viral with his complaints about the unfairness of the low payouts of mainstream music platforms and their effect on artists’ ability to support themselves. Last week, he announced that he was participating in the launch of Vault, an artist-to-fan streaming platform based around musicians sharing unreleased tracks for $5 a month. “It’s music direct from me to you, where no one can gatekeep what I release to you, or delay my releases,” he said. “And it’s got a chat section for everyone to discuss the music.” It’s a model familiar to Patreon and even OnlyFans – but while it may work for podcasters and other episodic content creators, I believe it’s not the best route for musicians, and ultimately bad for fans, too.
The reason that per-artist subscriptions don’t make sense for fans is basic maths: multiply the number of artists you really care about by the subscription fees and the costs soon seem unrealistic, resulting in fans investing in one artist at the expense of another. And once listeners are locked in, there is a level of guilt associated with cancelling: the general subscription model is described as a “dark pattern” that makes emotional hostages of fans who want to break free of the monthly commitment.
Moreover, when musicians move to subscription models, they have a certain obligation to create content that has already been paid for: dance, monkey, dance! My music doesn’t exist because it was paid for, and even if no one ever paid me I’d still try to make as much as I could. Motivation to create is no bad thing, but the pressure to meet deadlines and consumer expectations is often creatively counterproductive – not to mention suspiciously similar to Spotify, which incentivises artists to maintain a constant drip-feed of releases in order to stay buoyant in playlists and editorial content. Any subscrip