Music Today: Restricted
In 2025, listening to music feels more like a chore than a joy. Streaming platforms weigh us down with subscriptions and limited catalogs, turning what should be a smooth experience into a frustrating online transaction.
Taylor Swift was named the Global Top Artist in December 2024. Photo courtesy of Spotify © All rights belong to their respective owners. No copyright infringement intended.
In 2017, Jay-Z made headlines when he released ‘4:44’ exclusively on his Tidal platform in collaboration with Apple Music. This event highlighted a stark divide between fans and their access to music. Emphasizing a premium streaming experience that offered superior audio quality and exclusive content created a sense of urgency among his fanbase. Users with active subscriptions on other music platforms had to switch to Tidal just to listen to the new album, while some felt excluded altogether. This marked the beginning of a less democratic music landscape.
In the past, when music was primarily an analog commodity, choosing between cassettes, CDs, and vinyl records provided a sense of order and justice that seems to be lacking today. Nowadays, the most popular music streaming platforms number around a dozen, each offering various options to meet users' different needs. Subscribers pay a monthly fee to access a vast music catalog; however, this is often limited by factors such as contracts, licenses, and strategic decisions made by artists and record companies regarding distribution. Additionally, streaming platforms may refuse to carry certain music if they disagree with decisions made by record labels. Plus, independent artists who are not under contract with any labels can choose where to release their music, often using digital aggregators like TuneCore or DistroKid.
Personal issues faced by artists can influence how their music catalogs are distributed on streaming services, often for economic or strategic reasons. For example, Jay-Z has opted to use Tidal, while Taylor Swift has previously chosen Apple Music as her exclusive distributor. Additionally, some artists may be available on one platform but have certain tracks or albums missing from their catalog. This discrepancy often forces fans to subscribe to multiple streaming services to gain full access to the music of their favorite artists.
In 2022, for a university project, I reactivated my Spotify Premium subscription because I needed Neil Young's tracks. A few days later, the artist disappeared from Spotify for ethical reasons as he was against Joe Rogan's presence on the platform, who was spreading misinformation about COVID-19. Neil Young asked Spotify to choose between him and Rogan; when faced with this ultimatum, the platform chose Rogan, leading Young to withdraw his music. This situation raises questions about who considers the users' needs in such cases. Although Neil Young eventually returned to the platform, some of his well-known tracks, including "Razor Love," were missing from the catalog.
For users, the absence of a track or artist can be irritating, especially if they view streaming as a universal catalog. This notion, which many of us initially took for granted, was challenged when the music industry clarified that this is not the reality at all, revealing through its marketing choices how control and profit dictate how we listen to music.
The concept of creating exclusive music for certain subscribers could reshape the perception of music as a premium good. However, this approach might alienate listeners who are unwilling to pay for multiple platforms. For instance, the band Tool chose to withdraw their music from streaming services to emphasize the value of physical copies. Nevertheless, economic and cultural factors make a return to analog media challenging. A monthly subscription is generally considered less expensive than purchasing physical music and provides access to millions of tracks. Streaming has transformed music into a service experience instead of a physical commodity to be owned. Many consumers no longer feel the need to "own" an album when they can listen to it on demand. Modern listeners often prefer to create personal playlists and rely on algorithms for music recommendations, diminishing the relevance of purchasing entire albums.
The general dilemma can be summed up by this comment on Reddit: “The quality on Apple is great. I’ve discovered so many artists on Spotify. YouTube has albums and songs that aren’t available on other platforms.”
The situation has become a chaotic blend of multimedia. Our personal habits, often without our realizing it, are intertwined with technology, economics, and culture. This fragmentation of musical access prompts us to question: how much are we willing to sacrifice for convenience? The concept of a complete and universal musical experience has been replaced by a market that offers us endless possibilities, but in pieces.
Ultimately, it is not the music itself that has changed, but rather how we experience it. We have grown accustomed to viewing music as an endless stream, always available, often forgetting that what we do not own in our hands, can be controlled by others. While our listening habits have evolved, our need for music remains constant. Amidst subscriptions, algorithms, and dusty vinyl records, perhaps the real challenge lies in rediscovering the joy of simple listening, allowing the music to choose us.
