1. Superstars that make so much money that they won't be missing your Spotify dollars.
2. Most other musicians, who don't really make that much off album sales compared to ticket sales (unless they sell physical CDs at their concerts, in which case, maybe).
I'm curious if there are any indie musicians out there with a different opinion, though.
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/08/360-music-deals-become-mand...
One reason for this is that classical music is focussed much more on the music than the musician, when compared to "popular music" (what's the best term for non-classical music that doesn't sound patronising?). Sure, Yo-Yo Ma or the London Philharmonic can attract people based on who they are, but even then a lot of decisions to see them or buy their recordings will be based on what they are playing. If you're a Katy Perry fan, chances are slim that you really want to see her live, look up a concert, then say "ah, but I'm not a fan of those songs, I'll give it a miss".
Another reason is probably range of repertoire - again this comes down to caring more about the music, not having the piece tied directly to the person/group who always performs it. If you love Francois Couperin's music, you're going to find it a lot easier to buy recordings than find performances. I suppose the same is true for indie performers, but I think a classical listener is more likely to find a wider range of classical music that's hard to see live than the equivilent situation for indie music.
Probably plenty more reasons too, but not too much off the top of my head. Oh, and demand I guess. A classical music concert will typically either perform once, or perform a short run, or perform a few times in different cities (or countries). That's the case even for the very biggest performers. A big pop performer, on the other hand, can do a much longer tour, and can sell far more tickets for each.
As to recordings, I think classical recordings have a longer shelf life - sure, some people still buy music from the 80s, or whenever, but much less than around when it was released. Whereas classical music, all the music is so dated (not in a negative way, just literally) that who cares if it was recorded a month ago or thirty years ago, if it was originally written centuries ago. On top of that, I suspect classical music listeners are less likely to pirate music. Possibly that's a generic snobbish view, but I think it's accurate.
For instance think about that ambient, downtempo artist whose music is primarily meant for quiet listening sessions at home. Furthermore I could very well imagine that this kind of music and probably a lot of other niche stuff won't make their listeners buy fan shirts - there are genres that are less suited for live gigs and whose audience won't be attracted to merchandising.
To cut it short - what may work for a majority of artists isn't necessarily the solution for everyone and shouldn't be considered as a general fact that compensates for lower sales revenue or even justifies it.
There are lots of revenues to be lost by reducing, or making free, the cost of recorded music. How much is the Beatles catalog worth (in terms of albums sales, not licensing) and what is the lifetime value of their album sales vs. their touring receipts?
As for the artists, I don't know, Spotify (and Internet in general) helps all those little bands to get some listeners, as discovering new artists is much easier now thanks to technology (20 years ago it all depended on labels, MTV and music press). As for the "big" artists? I don't think they should have been earning as much as they were during the heydays of music industry, nor do I feel like helping Mick Jagger or Bono funding a new yach or private jet.
I'm a European Spotify subscriber, and I'd be hard pushed to go back to purchasing albums again. Access really does trump 'ownership', and it would take Apple introducing a similar subscription service for me to go back to iTunes now.
But I wonder how Spotify can scale and actively support musicians. It might sound strange, but -- even as a paid subscriber -- I feel guilty when I use Spotify. I can't help feeling that musicians get an even rougher deal when I listen to their music over Spotify than when I buy tracks from iTunes or directly from their websites.
There is something unsettling about having instant access to a huge array of songs and only paying £9.99 a month for the service. It is so different to the traditional model that it almost feels like stealing. It's a feeling I don't get listening to the radio; with the radio, you're a passenger hitching a lift. With Spotify, you're in control. And somehow it feels wrong. Like joyriding[1], It's hard to shake the feeling that there will be consequences.
I'm sure that won't dent your enjoyment of the service if you're in the US, but I thought it worth sharing the viewpoint.
[1]: So I'm told.