Prince, the recently deceased music icon, whose album Purple Rain rocked the world in 1984.  Garth Brooks, the best-selling solo album artist of all time.  Taylor Swift, currently the most popular singer in the world. These music legends cover different genres (rock, country, and pop, respectively) and eras (‘80s and ‘90s, 2000s, and today,).  But they all have three things in common. Each has record-smashing hits, legendary status , and not a hint of their existence on Spotify (well, aside from the occasional single on a hard-to-find movie compilation).  Spotify, the most popular free music streaming site in America, does not stream three of the most popular singers of all time.  These music superstars took their songs off of this streaming site, and many others similar to Spotify, because they claim that their work is underpaid and undervalued.  

“Music is art, and art is important and rare.  Important, rare things are valuable.  Valuable things should be paid for,” said Taylor Swift.

Swift believes that because Spotify is free, she’s not making money and is being treated unfairly.  But is it really unjust, or are these singers just overreacting and trying to increase their net worth?

Let’s look at the facts. The most important factor explaining why these singers are holding out on streaming, is money.  According to Spotify, each singer makes between $0.006 and $0.0084 for every listen.  And while this may sound really unfair, singers who get 9 billion listens, like Taylor Swift would still make $75.6 million off Spotify!  Right now, according to Money Nation, music sales from iTunes, downloads, and CD sales, earned Taylor Swift about $82 million.  If she adds her music to Spotify, she could double her income from music sales, now earning her about $157.6 million!  While this may sound like a jumble of numbers, think of it this way.  Taylor Swift, from music sales alone, is making over 14 times as much money as superstar basketball player Steph Curry!  And this excludes concerts, merchandise and endorsements, which earn the majority of her money.  Adding on to the $56 million she makes from Youtube, she could earn $200 million, just from music sales!  Swift is getting paid a boatload of money!  Why isn’t she satisfied with this?

Spotify could greatly popularize a singer’s name and their music, regardless of their genre and music era.  Take Garth Brooks, for example. He was a big name a decade ago, but his songs aren’t very popular nowadays.  However, putting his music on Spotify would give newer listeners access to his music, and likely increase his sales and fan base. Spotify allows new and lesser known artists the opportunity to have listeners access their music without having to invest in it.  Who would spend money to download an unknown song or artist?  At first, many singers, like Adele, weren’t happy with the idea of free music, but she and many others, gave in to the ever-growing idea of music streaming.  According to Adele, “It probably is the future.”  And now, since Adele yielded to Spotify, fans can finally enjoy “Hello”, “When We Were Young,” and many other of her songs for free.  

This sounds like a win-win for musicians and listeners.  Making music free could promote singers, their art, and the exploration of new music.  This is a great deal for the artist, and fans.  As a 12 year-old, with no source of income, I’ve discovered my love of music through Spotify.  I listen to the Beatles, Billy Joel, Aerosmith and even Broadway musicals.  Without Spotify, and other free streaming, my listening would be limited to what’s on the radio, and I would not be exposed to all of the old music and genres not played on the radio.  So kudos to Spotify, for allowing young listeners of music with no income to explore all of the music of the world, in all its diversity.