“Redefining Music Listening through Alternative Music Platforms is untenable”

In an era where the music industry is grappling with the consequences of streaming giants, alternative platforms like Vault.fm have emerged, promising a direct avenue for artists to receive support from their fans. Backed by acclaimed musician James Blake, Vault.fm steps up as the latest counterweight constructed to reverse the devaluation of music and the exploitative practices of major streaming services. However, while its intentions are noble, the platform raises familiar alarm bells regarding the feasibility and long-term sustainability of fairer streaming alternatives.

One of the primary motivations behind the opposition to big streaming giants is their role in devaluing music, with the accessibility and virality of songs on these platforms inadvertently contributing to the perception of music as a lesser commodity. Many artists, Blake included, note that the unprecedented accessibility provided by streaming services has cultivated a culture where music seems free, undermining its monetary worth.  The issue of artist royalties, or rather lack thereof, further exacerbates this problem; Blake revealed via X that his viral cover of Frank Ocean’s Godspeed yielded neither him nor Ocean a penny. One can only imagine the financial risk that lesser known artists find themselves in, having received no compensation for their work.

Enter the Blake-backed Vault.fm, then, which proposes a solution in the form of individual subscription models, emphasising a direct artist-to-fan relationship whereby subscribers pay a monthly fee of $5 to access unreleased music directly from their favourite artists. However, while a model that at its essence prioritises artist support above all may win infinite integrity points, it does not seem to free itself from the range of challenges that have plagued past streaming alternatives.

One of the main criticisms of Vault.fm is its potential counterproductivity regarding artist livelihoods. By demanding a continuous production cycle of music to keep subscribers engaged, the platform may inadvertently pull artists away from more lucrative opportunities like touring, a musical practice that has seen its currency raised in an industry where exploitative contracts have made live performances key to artists’ financial sustainability. Such a shift – should Vault.fm be successful –only spells out further doubts regarding the economic viability of music as a profession.

 Endorsements of the service also fail to hold  when considering the potential compromise in the quality of content, a fear credited to the incessant demand to churn out music to meet subscriber expectations. A critique ironically mirroring the one frequently aimed at its mainstream streaming counterparts, Vault.fm struggles to remove itself from this perpetual trap whereby the relentless pursuit for quantity over quality could easily stifle artistic innovation.

However, the most pressing challenge confronting alternative streaming services like Vault.fm, to which the prior critiques this piece explores ultimately belong, revolves around consumer behaviour. Despite industry-wide discourse surrounding the need for direct artist support, this fails to trickle down to the average consumer’s subscription choices,  which are so often swayed by factors such as affordability and convenience. Indeed, so long as major streaming platforms continue to dominate the market by hosting the lion’s share of artists’ catalogues, persuading fans to embrace alternative platforms remains an uphill battle. In the quest to revolutionise the music industry’s economic landscape, some support alternative platforms like Vault.fm as a means of bypassing the capitalistic structures that dominate mainstream streaming, yet doing so through by resorting to another variant of the same system raises more than a few eyebrows, as it ignores the mammoth challenge of regulating human behaviour. At its core, capitalism thrives on market dynamics driven by consumer preferences, making it challenging to dismantle through alternative capitalist ventures. If anything, looking beyond the economics to the wider social and institutional fabric that influence this human behaviour may be a better bet, albeit beyond the control of Blake and co. Thus, while initiatives like Vault.fm may aspire to disrupt the status quo, how well they transcend capitalist norms remains uncertain, something which remains crucial given backers’ goals of elevating music beyond mere commodity status.

Blake’s own partial involvement with Vault.fm, though, hardly helps matters; despite endorsing the platform, his released music remains available on mainstream streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music. In this case, even amid doubts regarding the economic roots of the model,  one does wonder whether a complete breakaway from established platforms on his part would have better incentivised fans to consider alternative options. 

Ultimately, the success of alternative streaming services hinges on their ability to leverage consumer behaviour effectively. Vault.fm is hardly a novel initiative, and while it is a manifestation of a promising vision for a fairer music industry, their long-term viability remains uncertain. Without significant buy-in from both artists and fans, the platform risks becoming yet another footnote in the history of failed streaming services. As the industry continues to evolve, striking a balance between artist support and consumer demand will be paramount in shaping its future.