In Search Of A New Musical Home

August 1, 2025

In Search Of A New Musical Home

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

I said goodbye to Spotify today. My subscription is cancelled, and August will be my last month using the platform.

Now, for anyone else, this might not be such a big deal, but this is monumental for me. You know how much music means to me. Spotify, as a streaming service, was a huge part of my daily life for over a decade, and frankly, the biggest punishment you could impose on me was to ban me from it.

And yet, I voluntarily decided to quit.

It wasn’t the economics of music streaming that pushed me out. Indeed, I was bothered by the fact that the vast majority of the revenue generated by these streaming giants goes to the labels and the biggest artists. The smaller artists, the ones I often love to discover and champion, get paid a pittance. I mean, we’re talking fractions of a penny per stream. It’s a system that seems to be built on the back of creative talent, yet offers them so little in return. It felt… exploitative, to be honest.

But what cemented it for me, what truly was the nail in the coffin, was the news I read in June: the rather unsettling information about the founder and CEO of Spotify, Daniel Ek, heavily investing in military startups.

Not just a small investment, either; he’s the chairman of a German defence technology company called Helsing, which develops AI software for military use, including drones and other weapons.

Honestly, the thought turned my stomach. It’s one thing to be a massive corporation, perhaps not paying artists their fair due, but actively funnelling profits into the business of conflict and destruction? That, my friend, is a bridge too far for this pacifist soul. It means the money I’ve been handing over, month after month, is indirectly contributing to something I fundamentally oppose.

A big, resounding “no thank you” to that.

To better understand this matter, let’s go briefly through the macro first before going to the nuances of available options and the platform of choice. These are the sections you will find within this article (each is a hyperlink):

A Partial Deconstruction of a Mad Chain

As much as my core is against it, Daniel Ek’s business decision doesn’t come as a surprise within the broader context of contemporary global economics and geopolitics. One might even argue that Ek’s move, channelled through his firm Prima Materia, represents a calculated and rational bet on a rapidly growing market, albeit one with significant ethical implications. To fully grasp this, I’d suggest we take a look beyond the confines of the streaming industry and examine the wider trends at play.

Recent statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute show a significant surge in global military expenditure. In 2024, worldwide military spending reached a record high of $2.7 trillion – yes, with a big T. This translates to a daily expenditure of approximately $7.4 billion and marks the tenth consecutive annual rise and the steepest in over a decade. Make no mistake – this isn’t just an arbitrary statistic, it’s a clear signal of a fundamental shift in global priorities.

The world is rearming.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Rearmament is a direct response to a fractured geopolitical order. We’re witnessing the return of great-power competition, a phenomenon that many had hoped was a relic of a bygone era. The proxy wars* in places like Ukraine, Palestine, and Sudan, growing tensions in South East Asia, and the eroding presence of Western imperialist powers over Sahel countries – to name a few – are all manifestations of this. These events are prompting nations and alliances to rethink their security postures.

The NATO alliance, for instance, has recently made a major decision to increase its defence spending targets. The new goal is to have member states spend at least 5% of their GDP on defence, a dramatic increase from the previous 2% target. This new target is split into a 3.5% core for traditional defence and a 1.5% for broader security measures, such as cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. This isn’t just about buying more tanks and jets; it’s a fundamental recalibration of priorities that sees security spending as a central pillar of national policy.

This new focus extends beyond mere hardware to a concept known as technological sovereignty. European governments, in particular, have grown wary of their reliance on US and Chinese technology, especially in the defence sector. They are now actively seeking to build their own domestic technology base, particularly in cutting-edge fields like artificial intelligence. This is precisely the space where a company like Helsing operates.

Directing money into the security and military sector by default means less money to the diplomacy, social welfare and development for prosperity. When these nations arm themselves to the teeth, they need to do something with the investment, so they go to wars on every side and cause destruction.

As a company specialising in AI for military applications, including battlefield decision-making software, drones, and other hardware, it’s at the forefront of this trend. Ek’s decision to become the chairman and lead a large funding round suggests a strong belief in the company’s potential for high returns. This is a classic venture capital move: identifying an emerging, high-growth sector and backing a company poised to be a leader in it. The investment is not a charitable donation; it’s a pursuit of a profitable business opportunity, capitalising on a global move toward increased militarisation and technological sovereignty.

This is a profound and unsettling connection between our everyday consumption habits and the macro-level forces of war and profit. It forces us to ask if we can truly separate our everyday lives from the geopolitical and ethical realities of the world, ultimately leading us to confront a significant ethical conundrum.

*proxy war – a conflict fought by one or more major powers that do not themselves become directly involved. These wars are characterised by the involvement of powerful nations that avoid direct military confrontation and orchestrate battles through surrogate forces.

Navigating a Flawed Landscape to Find a New Home

Truth be told, I explored and experimented with other options out of curiosity, mostly annoyed by the payment system of Spotify. Nothing truly stuck. However, this time it feels much more serious. The decision to leave a platform I’ve relied on for so long called for a fundamental re-evaluation of the entire market and navigating a global music industry landscape that is, frankly, a minefield of corporate interests, regional disparities, and ethical complexities.

The options on the table aren’t as straightforward as they appear, and what works for a user in the developed world is often entirely different from what’s available or affordable for the Global Majority. The nuances are critical to understanding why I chose the path I did.

Apple Music

For many, the natural heir to the streaming throne is Apple Music. It’s the obvious choice for anyone already ensconced in the Apple ecosystem: your iPhone, your Mac, your HomePod all play together beautifully. The service has a vast catalogue, offers high-fidelity lossless and spatial audio at no extra cost, and has a clean, intuitive interface.

But it’s not without its problems. Apple’s “walled garden” approach is, in itself, a form of monopoly, albeit a different one. It’s a system designed to keep you within its own orbit, making it incredibly difficult to use its services with non-Apple devices. More importantly, while it pays artists more than Spotify, it’s still part of a major tech conglomerate with its own questionable labour practices and sprawling commercial interests. A direct move from one massive, problematic tech giant to another didn’t quite feel like the ethical sea change I was after.

Amazon Music

For many, this is a matter of convenience and cost, especially for those who are already Amazon Prime members. The library is massive, and it offers high-resolution audio as part of its “Ultra HD” tier.

However, the issues here are even more pronounced. Amazon is arguably one of the most powerful and ethically murky corporations on the planet. Its business model is built on market dominance, often at the expense of local businesses and fair labour practices. The company’s relentless drive for profit and its deep ties to various government and defence contracts make it a non-starter for my purposes. Choosing Amazon would be like swapping one set of ethical concerns for a far larger, more deeply entrenched one. It would be a case of, to put it mildly, out of the frying pan and into the fire.

YouTube Music

YouTube Musics main draw is the sheer depth of its catalogue, which includes official releases, remixes, and user-generated content you simply can’t find elsewhere. For those who love music videos and live performances, it’s a paradise.

However, like Amazon and Apple, it’s a subsidiary of an even larger corporation, Google (Alphabet). The economic and ethical problems here are vast, from Google’s data privacy issues to its own deep entanglement in global capitalism. The fundamental principle of supporting a smaller, more focused platform is lost with this option.

Additionally, “YouTube Music is not available in your area“ popped up on my screen, as will if you are based in other developing countries.

Deezer

Based in Paris, Deezer is a global player with a strong focus on personalised playlists and discovery. They’ve also been a vocal proponent of a more artist-centric payment model, which is a huge point in their favour. They’ve made strides to reduce streaming fraud and ensure that the money goes to the artists listeners actually stream, not just the mega-stars. It’s a compelling ethical position, and for a moment, it was a strong contender. However, they are not available in my country and most of the other developing countries.

SoundCloud

The wild west of streaming, SoundCloud is the home of emerging artists, independent creators, and niche genres. Its appeal is its grassroots, DIY culture. It even pioneered a “fan-powered royalties“ model, where a listener’s subscription money goes directly to the artists they listen to, a far more equitable system than the traditional model. But, while its artist-first approach is admirable, SoundCloud is primarily a hub for creators to upload and share. It lacks the polish and curated experience of other services, and its business model has faced financial turbulence, which raises questions about its long-term viability. It felt more like a supplementary platform for discovering new talent rather than a stable, primary home for my entire music library.

Tidal

Tidal is a platform whose core identity is rooted in two things that the others have only recently tacked on as features: artist compensation and sound quality.

While no streaming service pays artists enough in a world of a broken system, Tidal was co-founded by artists like Jay-Z with the explicit aim of creating a service that would give a larger slice of the pie to the creators. Recent data suggests that Tidal pays a significantly higher per-stream rate than Spotify.

On the other side, the commitment to high-fidelity audio is a real game-changer. For a true music lover, it’s about more than just listening to a track; it’s about hearing the depth and detail the artist intended. Tidal’s HiFi tier, with its lossless audio, provides a far richer and more immersive experience. It respects the craft and the sound, a principle that resonates deeply with me.

Finally, and most importantly, is the ethical alignment. While Tidal was acquired by Block Inc. in 2021, a financial technology company, its operations are not entangled in the defence industry in the same way as Spotify’s. This allows me to continue supporting a streaming model without the moral stain of contributing to the military-industrial complex.

The membership price is fair and lower than any other listed platform, but the downside is geographic coverage. While it’s present on each continent, it still remains unavailable in most developing countries.

All listed above are the options available in Western-centric markets, but the global streaming picture is far more complex and stratified. The very notion of “music streaming” is fundamentally different depending on where you are in the world.

In developed countries like the UK, the US, and Japan, the market is mature and dominated by a few key players. Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music collectively hold a staggering market share. The revenue model is primarily driven by paid subscriptions, which are affordable to a large percentage of the population. These markets also have robust internet infrastructure, high-end devices, and a cultural expectation of on-demand, high-quality audio.

In emerging markets across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, the landscape is a patchwork of global giants and highly successful local competitors. For example, in China, you have Tencent Music and NetEase Cloud Music dominating, in India, JioSaavn and Gaana are the primary players, while Boomplay is a major player in Africa, with a strong focus on African music and artists. The market here is less about paid subscriptions and more about ad-supported streaming. Prices are often dramatically lower to reflect local economies, which, while making music more accessible, exacerbates the problem of low artist royalties. For example, a stream in India pays a fraction of what a stream in the US does. These markets also face challenges with infrastructure, such as limited mobile data and low credit card penetration, which influences how services are designed and paid for. This is what I saw first-hand in Montenegro, a small European country often left behind by global service providers.

The fundamental choice for a consumer in these regions is not between an ethical service and a problematic one, but often between any service and no service at all. This global digital divide highlights the inequality built into the streaming business model itself.

Sign Up For My Newsletter

No schedule. No spam. Just wonder-full stuff, whenever inspiration strikes.

The Move

Surprisingly, unlike almost all other platforms, Tidal is available in Montenegro, an LMIC. It stood out as the most compelling choice. I made a decision to go with it as my primary platform and to keep SoundCloud as a secondary.

As mentioned earlier, my experiments with other platforms didn’t last for long. It was an annoyance to start all over again – searching for cherished tunes, being frustrated that I couldn’t find all the songs I was looking for, building playlists from scratch… However, as I am more determined this time around, I’ve found Tune My Music, a third-party platform that helps transfer playlists from one service to another.

This service allows transferring playlists from one service to another free of charge for playlists of up to 500 songs. Otherwise, if you have a massive library, they charge a small one-time fee, valid for a week, to transfer whatever you want, no matter the size of the playlist.

You can also opt for a monthly or yearly subscription, which gives you access to a constant in-sync mode if you enable it. If you have playlists made by others which you have no control over, and you want to have their updates, this is a good option, I gather.

I decided to transfer only my own playlists, and I spent a good chunk of today getting them moved over. While some songs are missing from original playlists, it actually felt rather liberating to do the move.

Can We Make a Wave?

Everyone’s got their own priorities and what matters to one person might not matter as much to another. For me, knowing where my money goes and supporting and working with businesses and organisations that align with my values is becoming increasingly important. And when it comes to something as integral to my daily life as music, it feels like a worthwhile switch. I’m not a saint, of course. I still have a long list of things and a few naughty habits to sort out! But it’s an ongoing process.

What’s interesting is that I’m not an isolated case. More and more people are reporting leaving Spotify for the same reason. Even more so, there’s an increase in people being conscious of the various implications of their consumer choices. We are seeing a growing movement of consumers who are no longer content with simply getting a good product or a cheap service. They are demanding transparency and ethical alignment from the companies they support.

Perhaps this might give you pause for thought about your own digital subscriptions and the companies you choose to support. In an increasingly interconnected world, our choices, however small they may seem, have ripples. Every time we spend money, we are casting a vote for the kind of world we want to live in. The act of choosing to leave a dominant platform in favour of an alternative, even if it’s a bit of a faff, is a form of digital activism. It’s a small but tangible way of taking a stand against a system that often prioritises profit over people and principles.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a whole new library of tunes to explore.