"Editor-At-Large" - Why "Spotify" diminishes music and impoverishes Artists.

In another of their occasional columns, our resident "Editor-At-Large" takes a sideways look at "Spotify"

Spotify. 

What a shower of bastards.

To go a bit biblical "they sow not, neither do they reap". 

Not that I care at all.

 

Yeah, Artists are being screwed, and yeah, we've published a lot of op-eds this year whining about the inequity of it, but, really, who cares? They might see me as an ally, but I don't give a flying fuck. I'm only interested in my Newspaper, or rather, clicks on my Newspaper's website. And if their impotent whinging generates clicks, then I'll publish it. "Social media engagement" is all that matters and I don't give a horse's cock where it comes from. 

So, I'll simultaneously print pathetic, indignant, gurning from an artist who has made 73p in royalty payments from Spotify for a song which has been streamed 4 million times, and then feature articles where one of those fuck-muppet music critics we're obligated to employ, list the best 10 tracks from whichever year it is, complete with a Spotify playlist for you to listen to. That's right, "Spotify", not one of the alternative streaming sites who play fractionally more in royalties. Why? Well that's your fault. If so many people didn't use Spotify simply because it's the cheapest, then we wouldn't use it either.

So we aren't hypocrites condemning, but still using, Spotify. You're the frigging hypocrites.