King Gizzard's decision to withdraw from Spotify is neither hypocritical nor performative

[RunningRiver]

I keep noticing a lot of backlash on this subreddit regarding King Gizzard’s choice to take their music off Spotify, with some claiming it’s hypocritical because they continue to use other platforms like Apple, Google, and Amazon, which are not exactly ethical paragons either. While I see their point, I believe there’s a broader issue being overlooked, and I’d like to share my thoughts.

Firstly, Spotify is the largest streaming service by a significant distance, yet it treats indie artists the worst. They offer the lowest per-stream payment of any major service, require artists to have at least 1000 streams in a year before they earn any royalties, and the Discovery Mode program actually pays artists 30% less in exchange for more exposure. Additionally, AI-generated music is taking away opportunities from real artists in the discovery process.

It’s also troubling that CEO Daniel Ek has invested $700 million into a military AI startup, which makes Spotify appear, for lack of a better term, like an evil corporation prioritizing profits over art.

Are Spotify’s issues unique? Of course not. Other platforms like Amazon, Apple, and Google also have poor payout practices and engagement with AI music, as well as ties to military technology. However, Spotify’s model is particularly egregious because it solely focuses on music as its main product. When the head of such a company is directly linked to military funding, it feels more significant than with companies that have varied product lines.

Interestingly, King Gizzard isn’t alone—several respected indie musicians like Deerhoof and Xiu Xiu have also opted to remove their music from Spotify recently. King Gizzard’s departure is the most prominent yet, and it could lead to a larger movement among other artists.

They must realize that leaving Spotify will cost them fans and money, but they’re encouraging their audience to rethink their music consumption habits. By remaining on other platforms, they’re prompting their true fans to reconsider their loyalty to Spotify, which may lead to a shift in how people engage with streaming services.

In essence, if their goal is to challenge Spotify’s practices, it may be more effective to stay on other platforms rather than completely cutting off access. This subtle strategy could inflict more harm on Spotify by encouraging fans to switch services instead of losing them altogether.

Just sharing my views on the matter. Thank you for reading, and I’d love to hear your opinions on this topic!

[emmad]

I’ve watched bands deal with streaming politics for years, and King Gizzard’s move feels genuine, not performative. It’s not just about Spotify’s military AI investment - they’ve actively screwed artists while getting more profitable. That 1000 stream threshold is brutal. Get 800 streams? You earn nothing.

This exposes Spotify’s weird relationship with music. Apple treats streaming as one feature in their ecosystem. Spotify built their entire business on underpaying creators. When indie acts like Deerhoof are doing the same thing, it’s not just King Gizzard being contrarian - there’s real frustration in the indie community about streaming economics.

Will this hurt Spotify? Depends how many artists follow. But it’s forcing conversations about artist pay that the industry’s been dodging for years.

[Finn_Mystery]

This whole thing shows what I’ve been thinking about for years - streaming totally flipped the power dynamics in music. When physical sales mattered, artists had way more leverage because distribution was actually expensive and complicated. Now Spotify acts like they’re doing artists a favor just by existing, when they’ve really built this system where musicians work for exposure while Daniel Ek gets rich enough to mess around with military investments. What’s wild is King Gizzard can even try this because they’ve built such a dedicated fanbase through constant releases and talking directly to fans. Most artists are stuck - leave Spotify and you’re invisible to casual listeners who find new music through playlists. But King Gizzard fans actively hunt down their stuff anyway, so they don’t need algorithmic discovery as much. The real test? Whether other mid-tier indie acts follow. If enough artists with real fanbases start bailing, it might force Spotify to actually pay artists better instead of throwing more cash at Joe Rogan while treating musicians like disposable content.

[SwiftCoder15]

The timing here is really smart. King Gizzard’s built up enough of a fanbase that they can actually pull this off without killing their career. Most smaller indie bands would be committing financial suicide by leaving Spotify entirely, but they’ve hit that sweet spot where their fans will follow them anywhere. What gets me about the military AI investment thing is how it shows Spotify’s fundamental shift as a company. They’re moving away from serving artists and listeners toward something way more dystopian. You’re already paying artists pennies, and now your CEO’s funneling profits into defense tech? That sends a pretty clear message about priorities. The strategy you mentioned makes sense too. By staying on Apple Music and other platforms, they’re giving fans an easy alternative instead of forcing them onto more annoying options like Bandcamp or buying physical media. It removes the friction that might stop people from actually switching services.

[CreatingStone]

Honestly, perfect timing right after Spotify’s Joe Rogan mess. Like you said about the military AI stuff - Ek’s using artist pennies to fund weapons tech while paying musicians fractions of cents per stream. King Gizz probably makes more from one vinyl than thousands of Spotify plays anyway. Smart move - their fans are loyal enough to follow them anywhere.

[Tom_89Paint]

I’ve switched between streaming services for years, and what gets me is how Spotify made everyone think music should basically be free. They trained a whole generation to expect unlimited access for ten bucks while artists get scraps. The military stuff just proves what we already knew - Spotify sees music as data to squeeze money from, not art worth supporting. King Gizzard’s being smart here. They’re not going full ideological warrior - just hitting the worst offender while keeping other options open. Most fans won’t buy vinyl or use Bandcamp, but they might jump to Apple Music or YouTube Music if their favorite band ditches Spotify. Question is: will this actually change anything? Spotify’s screwed over artists for years because nobody could fight back. But if enough established indie bands start coordinating these exits together, maybe it’ll force them to fix their garbage payout structure.