Which major artists remained on Spotify and publicly defended the platform during the 2025 boycott?
Executive summary
Very few high‑profile musicians publicly mounted a pro‑Spotify defense during the 2025 boycott; the record of major artists who explicitly stayed on the service and spoke up for it is sparse in available reporting, with Joni Mitchell’s return to Spotify (and her comments framing it as an “experiment”) among the clearest artist‑level public signals, while much of the contemporaneous coverage centers on departures and protest campaigns rather than large‑scale artist endorsements [1] [2] [3].
1. What the coverage shows: departures dominated the narrative, not defenders
Reporting from outlets tracking the summer–autumn 2025 wave shows pages of artists publicly requesting removal or removing catalogs from Spotify—King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, Deerhoof, Xiu Xiu and others were widely reported as leaving in protest over CEO investments and AI concerns—while most articles focus on the boycott’s growth and tactics rather than cataloging a list of prominent musicians issuing public defenses of the platform [4] [3] [5].
2. The clearest artist who publicly returned and commented: Joni Mitchell
Joni Mitchell’s catalogue returned to Spotify in late 2025 after earlier disputes over content and platforming; coverage records her music’s return and quotes framing the decision as an experiment that relied on fan trust, making her one of the more visible artist‑level statements that could be read as pragmatic defense or reconciliation with the service [1].
3. Company and industry voices often filled the ‘defense’ vacuum
When journalists sought counterpoints, they frequently quoted Spotify’s corporate defense of its payment model (arguing it pays the most under the pro‑rata model) and the company’s broader explanations about content and ad policies—these corporate statements were easier to locate in the press than comparable high‑profile musician endorsements defending Spotify amid the 2025 controversies [3].
4. Why explicit artist defenses were rare in reporting
Multiple outlets underline the risk calculus for artists: major labels and commercial acts are economically entangled with streaming revenue, and independent or politically active musicians faced moral pressures to protest CEO Daniel Ek’s investment ties to defense‑oriented AI companies; that dynamic helps explain why coverage shows more exits and protest statements than public pro‑Spotify defenses from major artists [1] [2] [6].
5. Exceptions, ambiguity and limits of available reporting
Beyond Mitchell’s return, the sourced reporting does not provide a robust list of “major” artists who both stayed on Spotify and publicly defended it in 2025; many stories list who left or called for boycotts but do not systematically record which major acts stayed and issued public pro‑Spotify statements, so absence of reporting should not be treated as categorical proof that no such defenses existed—only that they were not prominent in the sampled coverage [2] [5] [4].
6. What to watch next and why the question matters
Whether major artists publicly defend Spotify matters because visible artist endorsements can blunt boycott momentum and shape public perception; current reporting suggests the more visible public responses in 2025 were boycotts and artist withdrawals, with corporate spokespeople and select returning catalogues like Mitchell’s providing the clearest counterweights rather than a cohort of high‑profile artists openly campaigning for the platform [3] [1] [6].