Where is the music, Garth? These days, when it comes to discovering new music or listening to your favorites, streaming is undeniably king. A recent study found that streaming makes up 84% of music industry revenue, and Spotify alone reports having 110 million monthly active users in the United States. And more importantly, nearly 90% of their users fall into the highly-coveted (by advertisers and artists alike) 18-34 demographic. But none of them can listen to Garth Brooks. It’s a well-known fact that the “Friends In Low Places” singer refuses to license his music to Spotify or Apple Music, which combined make up around 50% of streaming users. He even briefly created his own streaming platform called GhostTunes back in 2014, but unsurprisingly it didn’t last long. Instead, if you want to hear “The Dance” or “The Beaches of Cheyenne,” you have to stream them on Amazon Music – which ranks fourth globally among streaming platforms with only about 11% market share (and many of those users only have Amazon Music because you get it automatically when you sign up for Amazon Prime). Garth has explained his resistance to streaming in the past by claiming that he was taking a stand for songwriters, who get only a fraction of the royalties for streams that they do for physical sales like vinyl or CDs: “I stick up for the songwriters because I’m freakin’ one of them. Everything I do for the songwriters, I do for myself. I’m the most selfish guy you’ve ever met, okay? But if we don’t take care of these songwriters, what do you guys have to play? … And I hope that songwriters want to get a Garth Brooks cut. One, because I hope that they think that it would be cool. But two, right behind it closely, I hope it’s because they know that if you’re a Garth Brooks songwriter, you’re going to get paid.” Of course Garth is notorious for releasing a new box set containing his most popular CDs every few years, and it seems that part of his argument for signing an exclusive streaming deal with Amazon Music is that they’re also a physical retailer, so he can still sell copies of his music to fans through their platform. And at one point, Garth’s stand was a principled one shared by many artists: Taylor Swift removed her music from Spotify back in 2014 to protest the low royalties, before ultimately returning in 2017. Prince did the same, before his music ultimately returned to the platform following his death. Now, it seems Garth is the only notable holdout – and it’s hurting his own legacy. While Garth seems to think that keeping his music off of Spotify (and YouTube, another popular source for young music fans) will force people to buy physical media, the reality is that people just don’t listen to his music. I would venture to say that most young music fans don’t even have a way to play CDs anymore, so there’s no shot they’re buying a box set. And because streaming has been around for so long at this point without his music available, there are 18-20 year olds who have NEVER been able to listen to his music. And not only is there an entire generation who’s never been able to listen to his music, but there’s another generation who, rather than buy physical media, simply don’t listen to the songs they grew up loving. A few months ago, we were out talking to people on Broadway in downtown Nashville and I was SHOCKED at how many young people couldn’t name a single Garth Brooks song. And while I think even most 18 year olds probably know “Friends In Low Places,” the fact that there are people out there who couldn’t even name his biggest hit (which is also the name of his Broadway bar, which was just steps away from us) just shows how much Garth is hurting his own legacy by keeping his music away from potential fans. I grew up a massive fan of Garth’s music. I’ve seen him in concert multiple times, and “That Summer” is one of my go-to karaoke songs. But by keeping his music off of streaming, Garth is almost ensuring that songs like that stop with my generation, the last generation that grew up regularly buying CDs and listening to terrestrial radio. I understand there are legitimate gripes with streaming and the low royalties they pay out to songwriters and artists. And I understand that Garth has an exclusive contract with Amazon Music so it’s not as simple as waking up tomorrow and deciding to end his holdout and put his music on Spotify. But I also understand that if his goal is to force a new generation to listen to his music the same way their parents did in the ’90s, that only ensures that they’ll never hear his music. And look, I know we give Garth a lot of crap here (and I know he’s not a fan of us), but Garth is obviously a legend in country music. I’m saying this as someone who would love to stream songs like “The Red Strokes” or “Unanswered Prayers” or “The Thunder Rolls,” and someone who thinks it would be a shame if yet another generation grew up never listening to those songs because they were simply unavailable. At this point, Garth’s protest may (theoretically) be helping songwriters, but it’s hurting his own legacy.The post Garth Brooks Is Hurting His Own Legacy By Keeping His Music Off Streaming Services Like Spotify first appeared on Whiskey Riff.