Considering we went from a few quid per track (physical media) to 99p a track to fractions of a pence per track, it appears that people would prefer not to pay. But yes, we should. How that would work, I don't know.Free market. Nobody "should" be paying more. People will pay if they think it's worth it.
Most smaller artists make their money from selling merchandise from touring.I'm curious. Is the reduced revenue per play offset by the increase in listeners from streaming services? It still looks to me like the most popular artists make millions, the average artists do ok and the shit ones are skint, much like it always was.
I think the main thing is people now dont place the same value on music and musicians as they used to, and artists haven't accepted that yet.
Was it ever any different when they were flogging their records from the boot of their car after a gig?Most smaller artists make their money from selling merchandise from touring.
Streaming makes them feck all.
Got me interested in the breakdowns so I’ve had a look at the revenue of a select few for their last yearend pre covidMost smaller artists make their money from selling merchandise from touring.
Streaming makes them feck all.
Patreon etc?Small artist (500k listeners on Spotify)
Live touring - 9%
Royalties - 35%
Merch - 12%
Other the rest.
You're not wrong, but I just find it too convenient to use, especially when I'm using it in my car or something. I compensate it by going to concerts and often buying merch directly from their bandcamps or at the concerts. Or at least I used to, before fecking 2020 happened.I refuse to use streaming services, which is really quite annoying, simply because the commercial model just doesn't work for artists. The kind of bands I'm mostly listening really need the money and so I'll buy, directly from them if possible.
A few points there.I'm curious. Is the reduced revenue per play offset by the increase in listeners from streaming services? It still looks to me like the most popular artists make millions, the average artists do ok and the shit ones are skint, much like it always was.
I think the main thing is people now dont place the same value on music and musicians as they used to, and artists haven't accepted that yet.
I’ve never actually seen patreon for any of my clients, so not sure if they just haven’t gone down that path or what.Patreon etc?
Do any of them have OnlyFans?I’ve never actually seen patreon for any of my clients, so not sure if they just haven’t gone down that path or what.
Some of the smaller ones manage to get some government grants or do production work for other artists and the like.
However, conversely people who did buy albums, or who may have become album purchasers, now don't so much.Honestly I only listen to Spotify a few hours a week so a tenner a month seems fair. My wife has her own subscription even though we often listen together so that's another tenner a month to Spotify. Other than that we listen to the radio a few hours a week too, though nowhere near as much now as pre-COVID since I now don't have to drive to work. The music industry is earning more from casual listeners like me now that I pay a tenner a month to Spotify than before since I never bought albums or anything like that.
Not that they’re declaring income on anywayDo any of them have OnlyFans?
Then it moves on to my second point/question. Do people value music the way they once did? If you look back to the 60s, during Vietnam, or rap in the 90s, and so on. Music drove and defined cultures. Could you say that now? I don't think so.A few points there.
First, you're assuming that the artists who get the most streams are better while the ones who don't are shit. Which isn't typically how people assess art, isn't a good predictor of what art will become culturally important and ignores the impact business mechanics have in artificially boosting an artists' profile on a streaming service. In effect what you're actually saying is that artists on major labels get more, which is a different thing.
Beyond that, the actual royalties artists get per stream is so small that their income has inevitably been massively reduced. It's difficult to say how much exactly they get per stream but most estimates have it in approximately the 100ths of a cent range. The math simply doesn't come close to working in terms of increased listeners offseting reduced revenue per play.
Most importantly, the money doesn't necessarily go to the artist you've streamed either. Let's say we both pay £10 a month but you listen Taylor Swift while I listen to smaller indie acts. Our money gets pooled, the streaming service takes its cut, then the remaining money is split based on the total number of streams that month. That means that the vast majority of the artists' share of the money I've spent to listen to smaller acts instead gets siphoned off to Taylor Swift instead, who I may never have listened to even once. Which again goes back to the business aspect, as it effectively means the streaming market is rigged towards acts on major labels with more marketing budget, who siphon the majority of the money that people spend listening to smaller and medium sized acts in addition to the money people spend listening to them.
I would hope OnlyFans is not easy to tax avoid on, cause some feckers make an absolute killing on that.Not that they’re declaring income on anyway
True, though the LP scene is still going strong.However, conversely people who did buy albums, or who may have become album purchasers, now don't so much.