"There's endless accessibility, but you're not really listening to anything"

The annual year-end sharing of Spotify Wrapped data and the recent social media fad for posting imaginary festival line-ups created using the Instafest app have once again stirred up the debate about the pros and cons of streaming services.

First of all, confession time. Until about six months ago, I was listening to embarrassingly little for a supposedly diehard music fan, given that I find myself unable to work or write with music playing. But then we got an Echo Dot fixed up in the kitchen, and, thanks to that and Spotify, my listening habits have changed for the better. Gone (largely) are the days of never getting around to checking out records recommended by others - now, I just ask Alexa to stick them on while I cook or wash up. In the last few days, I've been able to sample 2022 releases by the likes of Elder, The Smile and Loyle Carner at my convenience, without having to commit to the cost of buying albums that I really wasn't sure I'd like. In that respect, it's been a genuine revelation.

However, I still can't get over the nagging sensation that using Spotify is a dirty habit, an addiction best kept quiet (hence why I didn't post my own Instafest bill or publicise my Wrapped info - it just doesn't seem like something to be proud of). It's partly the way the platform's economic model screws over those who actually create its "product", of course - but it's also more than that.

Jeremy D. Larson sums it up well in a piece he wrote for Pitchfork in May: "Even though it has all the music I've ever wanted, none of it feels necessarily rewarding, emotional, or personal ... I have unfettered access to an abundance of songs I genuinely love, along with an abundance of great songs I've never heard before, but I can't shake the eerie feeling that the options before me are almost too perfect."

Larson classifies listeners into three broad categories depending on their level of engagement with music: passive, auxiliary and intentional. His argument is that Spotify and its competitors cater perfectly to the vast majority, who fall into the passive or auxiliary camps, but not to the intentional minority - himself (and myself) included. Spotify deliberately steers subscribers "away from the outer edges of the platform and towards the mushy middle" - whereas it's precisely those outer edges that Larson wants to explore, creating personal connections between songs that an algorithm simply couldn't predict or understand.

If Spotify isn't designed for music obsessives, then it's little wonder that - according to this September Guardian article by Liz Pelly, at least - many are actually quitting streaming services. Their reasons all ring true: the way that streaming reduces listening to a passive or utilitarian experience; the way that songs are so often encountered in isolation or within playlists, divorced from the context of an album; the way that it affects your attention span, increasing the temptation to listen to short snippets of songs before skipping and the likelihood that more difficult albums won't be given the time and repeated plays they deserve.

Having only recently properly signed up to streaming (well behind the curve, as ever), I'm not about to ditch it just yet - but I can certainly understand why others are.