Home / News / Mobile App News / Coldplay is the latest big name artist to snub Spotify

Coldplay is the latest big name artist to snub Spotify



After high profile snubs from Taylor Swift and Adele, Coldplay looks like it’ll be the next super act to give Spotify a wide berth.

The freshly-announced Super Bowl 50 musical act has a new album out on Friday, but according to the Wall Street Journal (via The Verge), it is set to give Spotify the cold shoulder.

The WSJ says, due to the band’s objection to Spotify’s free tier, the full length A Head Full Of Dreams LP “will not be immediately available on Spotify."

Chris Martin and co. are expected to make the album available on paid-only platforms like Apple Music and Tidal.

Of course, the suggestion that it won’t be immediately up for grabs on Spotify leaves the door open for the it to appear in the future, but Spotify members are set to miss out on those early plays.

See also: Apple Music vs Spotify

The band’s reported decision is part of an emerging trend where artists are picking and choosing between various streaming services and whether to embrace them at all.

Taylor Swift is only making 1989 available to paid subscription services.

Adele, on the other hand, allowed the single Hello to be played on Spotify, but isn’t sanctioning the 25 album to be played on any streaming platforms right now.


December 4, 2015, 11:57 am

Coldplay, Adele etc should be prevented from doing this by law, as it's anti-competitive. Sounds silly?

Consider this: In economic terms, each of these artists is like a producer who has a sole monopoly over the distribution of their own goods. (The fact that they are also market leaders and hold disproportionate influence on their own industry just makes it worse.) Musicians' roles should be, to create music and get rewarded for it, and not to interfere with the business model of the distributors.

I'm making a supposition here, but I don't think the remuneration Spotify etc hands back to the record company is a directly proportionate to the amount of streamed playbacks of the recordings requested by paid subscribers. It should be up to Spotify etc to determine how best to model their own business. If giving away some playback in return for advertising leads to a greater conversion rate of free to paying users, and if the availability of free playbacks increases the overall profile of the service so that more people overall subscribe, then that would still be good for Coldplay etc. That should be up to the streaming services to determine, not the artists.

If the artists are so precious as to insist on a direct linkage between each individual hearing their music and them getting paid, then why do they overlook that when it comes to other forms of mass distribution such as having their music played on the radio, or, even worse, allowing their music to be used on adverts? At least with the radio there are audience figures available. It seems like these artists are happy to overlook the free market principle when it suits them, but (in the case of Coldplay), once the initial hype has settled down and they've banked their download sales, they are happy enough to be on the catalogues of all and any streaming services.

It's just comes across as childish, and smacks of market abuse. Look up "retail price maintenance", for more.


December 4, 2015, 12:34 pm

Surely Spotify could make this album only available to the paid tier.
They already 'grey' out tracks because they are not available in


December 4, 2015, 4:27 pm

Coldplay are just another bland act that won't be missed on the platform,

Robert Cummings

December 6, 2015, 3:32 pm

You have no idea how little artist earn through Spotify. In fact, you come across as childish and naive ... perhaps clueless is a better word. Inform yourself of the facts and come back to revise your comment.


December 9, 2015, 12:03 am

Robert, if you can't comment without bringing personal insults into the debate, please don't comment at all.

If you have think the amounts Spotify pay out to artists are low, and that somehow contradicts my own point, then at least cite your sources. Otherwise you are just indulging in pointless "he said, she said" style name calling.

As it happens, this subject is one I have been following for years and I think I am reasonably well informed on the subject, although not inclined to engage in further discussion on this thread now.

comments powered by Disqus