The music world is currently locked in a fierce debate over the true nature of its largest player: Is Spotify a necessary evil that saved the industry from piracy, or is it a cultural poison slowly killing what it claims to support? The “Death to Spotify” movement has firmly planted its flag in the latter camp, arguing the platform’s harms now far outweigh its benefits.
The “necessary evil” argument posits that, in the wake of Napster, Spotify provided a legal framework that convinced a generation to pay for music again. It created a massive global marketplace, generating billions in revenue that, while distributed unevenly, is still better than the zero dollars from illegal downloads. In this view, the low payouts are an unfortunate but unavoidable feature of a system that offers unparalleled access and discovery.
On the other side, the “cultural poison” argument, championed by activists and critics, contends that Spotify has inflicted deep and lasting damage. This view holds that the platform has devalued music into a disposable utility, trained listeners to be passive consumers, and created a financial model that is fundamentally unsustainable for the vast majority of artists. They argue it has “flattened culture” and, with its founder’s ties to military AI, has become ethically toxic.
This debate is no longer academic. Artists like Hotline TNT and Caroline Rose are making their choice, opting for a complete exit. They are rejecting the “necessary evil” premise and betting their careers on the idea that a healthier ecosystem can exist without Spotify. They believe the convenience offered to the consumer is not worth the cost to the creator.
Ultimately, there is no easy answer. But the growing momentum of the anti-Spotify movement indicates that for an increasing number of people who make and love music, the scales have tipped. The “evil” of the platform is no longer feeling “necessary” at all.