{"id":2191,"date":"2013-07-25T10:04:19","date_gmt":"2013-07-25T14:04:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/riley\/?p=2191"},"modified":"2013-07-25T08:06:55","modified_gmt":"2013-07-25T12:06:55","slug":"is-spotify-bad-for-music-yorke-lose-the-ponytail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/riley\/2013\/07\/is-spotify-bad-for-music-yorke-lose-the-ponytail\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Spotify bad for music?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a>

The Eraser by Thom Yorke (Photo credit: horizontal.integration)<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Is Spotify bad for music? | Comment is free | The Observer<\/a><\/p>\n

Something unsettling about agreeing with Yorke in principle even though I respect his music more than admire or listen to it, and have a reflexive aversion to millionaires who complain about getting bad deals from the multinationals they bed down with. Of course, drawing attention to said deals = good. Don’t blame the messenger. But still. As a consumer, Spotify solves all kinds of problems and invites huge new resources for discovering new music, from this side of the fence, advantages FAR outweigh the pitfalls. Would happily sign on to a social mov’t dedicated to upping musician fees based on targets, quotas, some new creative benchmarks.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

WBUR’s ON POINT \u00a0with Tom Ashbook did a Spotify\u00a0show last week<\/a>…<\/p>\n

BRING POPCORN to watch the era’s unfolding disaster epic: publishing jumps off the very same cliff \u00a0the music industry did \u00a0ten years ago…<\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n