The answer, predictably, is financial, as the songwriter (who's also known for his work as Mount Eerie) criticized the service's business model, saying that just because it's "not illegal yet, that doesn't make it right." He further said that if artists aren't properly paid, the music will get worse.
So far the only pro-streaming argument I've heard is basically "Because I want it. It is more convenient for me to not pay you."— Phil Elverum (@PWElverum) August 16, 2020
Just because Sp****y's business model is not illegal yet, that doesn't make it right.
Pay the people who make what you love. It's very simple.
...that is, if what you love is vital music and art made outside the perversions of corporate sponsorship and hyperventilating capitalist hustling.— Phil Elverum (@PWElverum) August 16, 2020
If the people don't sponsor the poet with a home and food, the people quickly turn into ding dongs and the music gets really bad.
"It's good exposure" / "It's good for discovery"— Phil Elverum (@PWElverum) August 16, 2020
are classic lines from those who devalue music and art while the dangling carrot of compensation recedes into a "someday" myth.
People have been using that tactic since long before the internet. No. Pay your farmer.
Artists have been criticizing Spotify's notoriously low royalty rates for years, but the company has come under extra hot water lately, after CEO Daniel Ek suggested that artists aren't making money because they're not working hard enough.
Read Exclaim!'s review of the excellent Microphones in 2020, and watch the 45-minute album film below.