Currently the record labels have lowered taxes, likely to allow a new era for listening music legally.
They must be intelligent enough to understand there’s a thin line of where artist, record company, service and end-user will remain happy(~ish), and as far as I can tell (as an end-user) we’re walking it.
So when prices will rise, services will go down (again – due to end-users demanding fair prices), and there will be no place for a monopoly to exist.
- Maybe the record companies will collectively take down such services, buy the services (software = end-users) and run it themselves..

The issues towards the end-user you are addressing are mainly signs, of that these services are the first attempt since the music industry became Napster’d.
People need to get used that there is no universal portable medium (needed) anymore.
That not ‘all’ music is being offered yet, is because this medium transition is fresh (deals are still being made. For example: since a couple of months we can finally listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers on Spotify (and they have no problem getting around).
If I like a song that isn’t on the service I use, I have an issue..? Well, you likely have specific taste, and f.ex. Spotify allows you to imported music from iTunes to (freshly) bought CDs. I believe, given time, this problem will become minor/irrelevant to the main public (as seen with RHCP).

It is interesting you talk about a decentralized music provider Let’s not limit the possibility factor on paying for multiple services, of which one you only listen to 5% of your songs from.

I feel the services like Spotify should look at these ‘issues’ and see possibilities (in the early phase they are in now)!
What would be wrong if they could offer being a provider of the artist’ music towards the digital listeners? Why would they need to have sole ownership of the rights of the music. The income is all about quantity, and if multiple artists can sign up with multiple providers, finally stuff comes down again to who is doing the best job on what they are doing.

Indeed, a music lover would easily have spent much more money on CDs in the past, than what he spends now on a Spotify subscription – Spotify Premium even comes ‘free’ with certain ISP subscriptions here in the Netherlands. Moreover, he can now listen to _all_ (well..) the music he likes/wants. That is the really good part of Spotify, that I myself enjoy as well.

However. In the old ‘CD’ days, you would have CD’s issued by many different record labels, that you could all play in a single CD player. These days, I believe users will typically not want to subscribe to several different music services like Spotify (why would they, if one provider basically delivers all the music). Moreover, it would mean they would have to have several different players installed and would have to manage their playlists in each of these players separately. Not very user friendly. Switching music service provider is similarly awkward: you would have to rebuild your playlists from scratch…

This is way I think music services like Spotify tend to converge to a monopoly. This has severe disadvantages for the musicians, as explained in the blog post.

Someone that really listens to music has been spending more money on CD’s, then before these services became available.

A good product and marketing often results in what you are labelling a monopoly position. I bet, that another company can -and will- build a better variant in time. When this happens, you will realise there is no monopoly, but there were just no competitors that really got the whole perspective on building a business.

Or, I am missing your point..