Why Are Artists Leaving Spotify? A Guide for Listeners

23 Sept

Spotify has never been free of controversy. Over the years, big names have boycotted the platform, sometimes temporarily, sometimes for good. Joni Mitchell and Neil Young pulled their catalogues during the Joe Rogan misinformation row. Taylor Swift withheld her music for a time over royalty disputes. Others have stepped away quietly, only to return when the trade-offs felt too costly.

What’s happening now feels different. The current groundswell — described by some as a “Spotify exodus” — is less about one-off scandals and more about deeper, structural issues. The anger isn’t only about low payouts or arguments over playlists. It’s about where the money goes, what the platform represents, and how it’s reshaping music culture. This time, it looks less like a stunt and more like a shift.

Back in July, I wrote about why I was leaving Spotify, and then followed it up with a field report on life after. I’ve also been taking this message out on tour. Since then, people have written to tell me they’ve moved their listening — and sometimes their whole family’s listening — away from Spotify. Others have asked about alternatives and how to take the next steps. With all that in mind, this third piece looks at the issue from a listener’s perspective.

Why Are Artists Leaving Spotify?

The grievances aren’t new, but the mix of them — and the urgency behind them — is what sets this moment apart. Four themes keep coming up.

Ethical concerns

This is the flashpoint. Spotify’s founder, Daniel Ek, invested €600 million — money made on the back of musicians he refuses to pay fairly — into Helsing, a defence-tech company developing AI-driven weapons. He now sits on its board. Add to that Spotify’s political donations, including support for Trump’s inauguration, and you see why musicians are furious. As Deerhoof put it: “we don’t want our music killing people.”

Low payouts

On its own, musicians often find ways to ignore this or treat it as a cost of doing business. You tell yourself it’s the price of visibility, or that the handful of pennies is worth it if a listener later buys a ticket or a record. For many, it’s been easier to swallow the loss than risk vanishing from the world’s biggest platform. But when you set those fractions of a cent against the vast profits Spotify makes — and then watch those profits funnelled into weapons or politics — the compromise starts to look absurd.

Service	Estimated payout per stream*	Per 1,000 streams*	Source
Qobuz	~ US$ 0.01873	~ US$ 18.73	Qobuz press, MusicTech
Tidal	~ US$ 0.0128–0.0133	~ US$ 12.80–13.30	Ditto Music
Apple Music	~ US$ 0.01	~ US$ 10.00	Apple Music artist letter
Amazon Music	~ US$ 0.00402	~ US$ 4.02	LabelGrid
Spotify	~ US$ 0.003–0.005	~ US$ 3.00–5.00	Ditto Music
YouTube Music	~ US$ 0.00200	~ US$ 2.00	Royalty Exchange

*Estimates to rights-holders (labels/publishers) before splits with artists/performers; actual payouts vary by country, subscription type and contract.

I’ve written more about the pluses and minuses of leaving Spotify from a musician’s perspective here.

AI issues

In 2025, folk singer Emily Portman discovered two albums of AI-generated music uploaded under her name. Spotify allowed them through. The titles sounded like songs she might write, the instrumentation imitated her style, and the voice was an eerie approximation of her own. Fans congratulated her on a record she hadn’t made. It took weeks of complaints to get the music removed.

This wasn’t an isolated glitch. Other Americana and folk artists — Josh Kaufman, Jeff Tweedy, Iron & Wine — have also found fake AI releases appearing on their official pages. Even dead musicians such as Blaze Foley have been “resurrected” with counterfeit albums. What’s happening here is identity appropriation: artists’ names and reputations hijacked, their audiences misled, and their work devalued.

The problem isn’t only fraudsters. Spotify’s own user agreement gives it sweeping rights to “reproduce, modify, create derivative works from” and “otherwise use” any content uploaded to its platform. Combine that with AI and you have a dangerous mix: a system that can flood catalogues with “vacuous and pristine” fakes, while sidelining the messy, human qualities that make music meaningful.

Why would Spotify tolerate this? Because AI-generated music is cheap. There are no composers to pay, no performers to argue about royalties, no artists pushing back on “moral rights.” If listeners can be nudged into consuming AI slop — tracks designed for background playlists — then Spotify reduces its royalty bill. It’s not just a technical glitch, it’s a business incentive.

For musicians already scraping by, the idea that their identity can be stolen, automated and monetised against them feels like a line crossed. As Portman put it, the experience was “really creepy” — and for many, it looks like the start of something dystopian.

Cultural damage

Finally, there’s the wider cultural effect. Spotify has encouraged a homogenised style sometimes called “Spotifycore” — songs built to please algorithms and fit neatly on background playlists. Festivals and promoters, too, have been known to reduce artists to their Spotify monthly listener numbers rather than listening to the music itself. It’s not just bad economics; it’s a distortion of culture.

What This Means for Listeners

For listeners, the headlines can sound alarming — a “Spotify exodus”, bands “quitting” Spotify, catalogues vanishing overnight, playlists suddenly full of gaps. But taking music off Spotify doesn’t mean it disappears. It means moving it somewhere healthier.

The main change is that you might not find every track in one place anymore. Spotify built its empire on convenience: a single app where anything you fancied was there at the tap of a button. That convenience has always come at a cost — not to you directly, but to the artists whose work fuels the system.

If you’re used to passive listening — background playlists, algorithmic radio, Spotify Wrapped once a year — you may feel the shift most sharply. Those features don’t translate outside Spotify in quite the same way. But the core convenience of streaming — millions of tracks in one app, ready to play anywhere — has been replicated elsewhere. What changes is the ethos. A platform like Qobuz treats albums as cultural objects and pays artists more fairly. And if you choose Bandcamp or physical media, you gain something else entirely — a closer, more direct connection between artist and listener.

For the artists leaving, it’s about integrity and sustainability. For listeners, it’s about recognising that your choices matter. Where you click play, and where you spend a tenner a month, can either reinforce the problems or help to build better alternatives.

Alternatives to Spotify

Leaving Spotify doesn’t mean losing access to music. It means choosing different ways to listen — and deciding what kind of culture you want to support.

Bandcamp

For many musicians, Bandcamp is the gold standard. You can buy downloads, vinyl, CDs and merch directly from the artist, often with a message or thank-you note attached. Bandcamp Fridays — when the company waives its cut — have funnelled millions straight into artists’ pockets. It’s not a like-for-like replacement for Spotify’s endless jukebox, but it’s the most direct way to support the people making the music.

Qobuz

Qobuz has quietly become a favourite among musicians and listeners who want streaming without the compromises. It pays several times more per stream than Spotify, offers lossless and hi-res audio, and treats albums as cultural objects, complete with essays and reviews. There’s no free tier, which means listening is always paid listening. For many, that alone makes it feel healthier.

Subvert

Still in its early days, Subvert is experimenting with a co-operative model run by musicians for musicians. Members have a say in how the platform works, how revenue is shared, and even receive a beautifully produced print zine. It’s small, scrappy, and idealistic — but it points towards what a fairer digital ecosystem could look like.

Tidal

Tidal has positioned itself as the “fairer” mainstream alternative, with higher payouts than Spotify and a HiFi tier for better sound. It doesn’t have the editorial care of Qobuz or the direct support of Bandcamp, but it remains one of the better-known options.

Apple Music

Apple pays roughly double what Spotify does per stream, and its catalogue is vast. But culturally, it’s still a corporate platform: no liner notes, little sense of community. For listeners who want mainstream convenience without Spotify’s baggage, it’s a workable compromise.

Physical media & record shops

The oldest alternative is still the most tangible. Buying a vinyl or CD at a gig, or in your local shop, puts money straight into musicians’ hands and keeps physical culture alive. It also creates the kind of human connection that no playlist can replicate.

The Playlist Question

For lots of people, playlists are the main way they use Spotify. The algorithmic ones like Discover Weekly, but also the personal ones you’ve built up over years — mixes for a drive, or a season, or just songs you don’t want to lose track of. They become a kind of diary without you even meaning them to.

That’s usually the first worry about leaving: what happens to all my playlists?

The good news is you don’t have to throw them away. Services like Soundiiz and FreeYourMusic will copy playlists across to Qobuz, Tidal, Apple Music or YouTube Music. It isn’t flawless — some tracks won’t match, and now and then you’ll have to do a bit of tidying — but most of it comes across without too much fuss.

There’s also an odd benefit. When you rebuild or trim down playlists, you notice which songs actually matter to you and which ones were just filler. It’s a chance to sort through the clutter and end up with lists that feel a bit more intentional.

Scrobbling on Last.fm

For some listeners, especially those who’ve been online since the mid-2000s, Last.fm is still part of the picture. Scrobbling — the act of logging every track you play — creates a long-term record of your listening habits. It’s not for everyone, but for the people who’ve stuck with it, the archive is precious: a diary of taste stretching back years.

If that’s you, the good news is that leaving Spotify doesn’t mean giving it up. Qobuz makes scrobbling incredibly simple, with a toggle built straight into its settings. Other platforms can do it too — Tidal, Apple Music, even Bandcamp with a bit of help — but they often require workarounds or third-party plug-ins. With Qobuz, it just works.

For the old-timers still attached to their Last.fm stats, that ease of integration can make the move away from Spotify feel far less daunting.

How to Support Artists After Spotify

If your favourite artist has left Spotify, the best thing you can do is show up for them elsewhere. A few simple changes make a huge difference.

Buy music on Bandcamp. Downloads, vinyl, CDs, merch — it all goes directly to the artist (minus a small cut). Bandcamp Friday, when the platform waives its fee, is an especially good time.
Stream on Qobuz. Each play is worth more to the artist than it would be on Spotify, and you’ll get better sound quality into the bargain.
Follow mailing lists. Most musicians run them, and they’re far more valuable than a Spotify “follow.” Mailing lists are how artists let you know about tours, releases and special projects without relying on algorithms.
Swap out links. If you share music with friends, try using Bandcamp or Qobuz links instead of Spotify ones. It signals to others that there are healthier ways to listen.
Go to gigs and buy directly. The most old-fashioned way is still the most effective: buy a record at the merch table, have a chat, and put money in the musician’s pocket without middlemen.
Spread the word. Tell people why you’ve changed platforms or habits. The more listeners show they care, the easier it is for other artists to take the same step.

It doesn’t mean throwing away streaming altogether. It means nudging your habits so they line up with the values you already hold — fairness, sustainability, and music made by people rather than algorithms.

Article series:

Jon Wilks