In his defence of Spotify, Ek made lofty claims about “supporting creator expression” in a company founded “to enable the work of creators to be heard and enjoyed by listeners around the world.” The use of the word “creator” is significant, as if musicians and podcasters are the same, because that is how Spotify wants to frame the argument. 

But we all know they are not the same. Creator is not a word used by musicians to describe what they do, nor by fans discussing why they love the Beatles, or prefer the Rolling Stones, or think they are both old hat and only listen to Charli XCX. Rather, the favoured term is “artist” which has very different connotations. 

Artists are given a lot of leeway to making art that is meaningful to them, and which is open to subjective interpretation. So open indeed, that it can be admired by many who would never even remotely be in accordance with the artist’s personal point of view. Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s favourite band are revolutionary socialist punks The Clash. I rest my case.

But no one thinks of a podcaster as an “artist.” They are “content creators”, “entertainment providers,” “broadcasters”, “influencers”, “opinion makers” or just some dude with a microphone spouting off about whatever is in their head. Now that is a far more divisive field.

In fact, music audiences are incredibly tolerant of other people’s tastes. You can love Jazz and loathe Heavy Metal but you are not going to walk out of a record store (or streaming music library, which is effectively what Spotify has been for the past decade) because it sells both. As long as there are Jazz and Heavy Metal sections, everything is dandy, and we can all co-exist in relative harmony. Indeed, because aesthetic taste is such an intimate and personal thing, plenty of people might actually like a bit of both with some experimental electro on top. Otherwise, how do you explain Radiohead?

But we tend to be far less tolerant of other people’s opinions than we are of their aesthetic judgements. I would venture that most people who enjoy left-leaning/socially liberal podcasting actively detest right-wing/socially libertarian podcasting and vice versa. There’s not a lot of crossover when it comes to vigorously expressed sociological and political convictions. If you love, say, Michelle Obama’s touchy feely podcasting there is a very good chance you might find Joe Rogan’s blusteringly provocative podcasting deeply repugnant and offensive. And then you might indeed walk out of a store that is promoting it.