Gary Numan gets £37

chunkylover53 said:
Amazon are probably a slightly different beast given their infrastructure etc.

Looks like Spotify made a small profit one year, EUR 50m or so. That’s tiny relative to their revenues

other sources indicate a loss. I’d need to look at it properly
Click to expand...

Someone is making money it's just who.. is it the record companies.. if you were to list on Spotify direct is the payment higher ?

No idea how the models work
 


But according to the Broken Record campaign, artists receive around 16% of the total income from streams, while record companies get around 41% and streaming services around 29%.
Click to expand...
Where's the other 14% going?

How much did your average artist make from physical media sales before streaming took off?

29% to the likes of Spotify may seem excessive when the artist is only picking up 16% but then they've got to pay to keep the thing up and running.

41% for the record company. Wonder what they're actually doing when it comes to streaming.
 
PTR said:
0.004p per listen.

Can't help but think that's not enough money. Someone listens to your song 100 times and you make 1/3 of a penny.
How can anyone justify that?
Click to expand...
It is pitiful, for most musicians. But, of course, that .33 of a penny will be worth a huge amount to the Drakes and Ed Sheerans. I've just worked out that Sheeran once earned £228,000 in one day from Spotify.
chunkylover53 said:
Believe so. You can list independently on Spotify for £20 per year
Click to expand...
Most musicians use distributors, such as CD Baby, who place songs on all of the major platforms. This is great, because it takes care of one area that was formally carved up by the majors. Of course, marketing is an entirely different matter.
 
Last edited:
Big Jeff said:
I buy CDs - I might listen to a stream first but I like to own the thing. And I like to support bands I like.
Click to expand...
That's a nice attitude. Most artists continue to derive much of their revenue from CD sales, particularly at gigs. The profit margins amount to around £7.50 on a £10 disc - as opposed to that 0.33 of a penny on every track.
 
Arkle said:
Streaming, through the major services at least, is great for the consumer but not for musicians. I know some people will buy things based on what they stream but most don't. Artists below stadium and arena fillers have increasingly had to rely on gigs and direct sales of merchandise to make a living and, with Covid-19, that source has gone.
Click to expand...
I would pay for a more niche streaming service so that the less popular bands got the lion's share of my subscription.

Or a service that paid out my £10 to the bands I listened to.
 
Boo said:
That's a nice attitude. Most artists continue to derive much of their revenue from CD sales, particularly at gigs. The profit margins amount to around £7.50 on a £10 disc - as opposed to that 0.33 of a penny on every track.
Click to expand...
Did you miss that its 1/3p for every one hundred listens. I was trying to think of a number that might represent how many times you might listen to song you may once have bought for 99p on iTunes. 100 times seemed like a good number, and that would be 1p per listen - 285 times more per listen!
 
PTR said:
Did you miss that its 1/3p for every one hundred listens. I was trying to think of a number that might represent how many times you might listen to song you may once have bought for 99p on iTunes. 100 times seemed like a good number, and that would be 1p per listen - 285 times more per listen!
Click to expand...
Yes, I did and you're right. It's pitiful, whichever way you look at it.
 
Epping said:
Someone is making money it's just who.. is it the record companies.. if you were to list on Spotify direct is the payment higher ?

No idea how the models work
Click to expand...
Its 1 thing for Next to make 99.9 % and the indian sweat shop gets whats left but this is a legit business worth millions and the cake needs to be split better
surely Spotify etc realise without the artist they have no business
 
Harry Angstrom said:
I would pay for a more niche streaming service so that the less popular bands got the lion's share of my subscription.

Or a service that paid out my £10 to the bands I listened to.
Click to expand...

I like Bandcamp as you know most of the money goes to the artist, however, they don't run a general streaming for a fee model.

I'd prefer it if streaming revenue went directly to the artist only rather than being worked out by percentage of total streams. The latter can be manipulated by streaming bots.
Arkle said:
I like Bandcamp as you know most of the money goes to the artist, however, they don't run a general streaming for a fee model.

I'd prefer it if streaming revenue went directly to the artist only rather than being worked out by percentage of total streams. The latter can be manipulated by streaming bots.
Click to expand...

By which I mean robotic "listeners" not arses with diarrhoea.
 
Arkle said:
I like Bandcamp as you know most of the money goes to the artist, however, they don't run a general streaming for a fee model.

I'd prefer it if streaming revenue went directly to the artist only rather than being worked out by percentage of total streams. The latter can be manipulated by streaming bots.


By which I mean robotic "listeners" not arses with diarrhoea.
Click to expand...
:lol:

If the £10 I spend was allocated on a pay per play basis to the bands I would be much more satisfied.

So if in one month I played 27 warren zevon songs 2 by Dua Lipa and 71 by Khruangbin. Then £2.70 would go to the estate of Warren Zevon 20p to Dua and the rest to Khruangbin.

If I played Dua Lipa 3000 times in the month and nothing else, then Dua Lipa would get £10.

The bots £10 would go to whoever they decided to stream.
 
Big Jeff said:
I buy CDs - I might listen to a stream first but I like to own the thing. And I like to support bands I like.
Click to expand...
My son is 16 and started on youtube route mostly,the last two years though he got into CD's ,he want the physical items ,the sleeves,the lyrics,the notes,the free poster or whatever
a lot of the obscure stuff he likes (Tyler the creator ,Steve lacy etc ) try to limit who they give their stuff to as far as streaming
Harry Angstrom said:
:lol:

If the £10 I spend was allocated on a pay per play basis to the bands I would be much more satisfied.

So if in one month I played 27 warren zevon songs 2 by Dua Lipa and 71 by Khruangbin. Then £2.70 would go to the estate of Warren Zevon 20p to Dua and the rest to Khruangbin.

If I played Dua Lipa 3000 times in the month and nothing else, then Dua Lipa would get £10.

The bots £10 would go to whoever they decided to stream.
Click to expand...
i prefer watching these ...
 
Last edited:
Streaming is something of a rigged process, given that the subscription fee paid by the user is distributed across the entire catalog found on Spotify, Apple, whatever, rather than to the artists you listen to personally. In effect, you're paying the majority of your sub for Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran (they stream more and thus given greater % weight) than the bands you are listening to yourself, perhaps artists like Nadine Shah, who says she can't even pay the rent [with the proceeds of her streams] now that covid has curtailed live.

The argument from labels, including a pal of mine who is a music lawyer is: "it's better than nowt", or rather, it's better than the wild west of illegal downloads which preceded streaming. True, perhaps. The fact of the matter is major labels are making roughly $1,000,000 an hour from streaming; they hold the largest slice of the pie (the biggest artists) and have the funds (courtesy of streaming) and the leverage (they are tight with the digital streaming platforms) to sign even more of them. It's a world of mutual backscratching, the three majors and Spotify both need hits to keep the lights on. When they put their heads together, they can collectively break an artist overnight and earn millions in the space of days.

Take Olivia Rodrigo (Disney lass who Taylor Swift's promoted) who released her very first song 'driver's license' on 8 January. It's a perfectly listenable slice of teeny angst with bland production, could just as easily be Ariana Grande, Selena Gomez, Swift herself. It took just a week for Spotify and her labels Polydor, Interscope and Geffen to place her at No. 1 in 48 countries on Apple Music, 31 countries on Spotify and 14 countries on YouTube, breaking absurd records in the process (21 million streams in three days. On the fourth day 15 million streams alone. The day after that 17 million streams. Fastest song to reach 100 million streams on Spotify) and charting at #1 on the official charts in America, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, NZ... that's money. And lots of it. You've got Spotify? You're paying for that song you've likely never even heard.

All but around 0.2% of artists are making what's akin to beer money from streaming, if that. A user centric model would be the first step - the artists you actually listen to get the correct proportional % of the money you're paying - but it will frankly never happen as the current set up suits Spotify and the majors perfectly well.
 
Bukowski said:
Streaming is something of a rigged process, given that the subscription fee paid by the user is distributed across the entire catalog found on Spotify, Apple, whatever, rather than to the artists you listen to personally. In effect, you're paying the majority of your sub for Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran (they stream more and thus given greater % weight) than the bands you are listening to yourself, perhaps artists like Nadine Shah, who says she can't even pay the rent [with the proceeds of her streams] now that covid has curtailed live.

The argument from labels, including a pal of mine who is a music lawyer is: "it's better than nowt", or rather, it's better than the wild west of illegal downloads which preceded streaming. True, perhaps. The fact of the matter is major labels are making roughly $1,000,000 an hour from streaming; they hold the largest slice of the pie (the biggest artists) and have the funds (courtesy of streaming) and the leverage (they are tight with the digital streaming platforms) to sign even more of them. It's a world of mutual backscratching, the three majors and Spotify both need hits to keep the lights on. When they put their heads together, they can collectively break an artist overnight and earn millions in the space of days.

Take Olivia Rodrigo (Disney lass who Taylor Swift's promoted) who released her very first song 'driver's license' on 8 January. It's a perfectly listenable slice of teeny angst with bland production, could just as easily be Ariana Grande, Selena Gomez, Swift herself. It took just a week for Spotify and her labels Polydor, Interscope and Geffen to place her at No. 1 in 48 countries on Apple Music, 31 countries on Spotify and 14 countries on YouTube, breaking absurd records in the process (21 million streams in three days. On the fourth day 15 million streams alone. The day after that 17 million streams. Fastest song to reach 100 million streams on Spotify) and charting at #1 on the official charts in America, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, NZ... that's money. And lots of it. You've got Spotify? You're paying for that song you've likely never even heard.

All but around 0.2% of artists are making what's akin to beer money from streaming, if that. A user centric model would be the first step - the artists you actually listen to get the correct proportional % of the money you're paying - but it will frankly never happen as the current set up suits Spotify and the majors perfectly well.
Click to expand...
I love spotify. But I suppose it is a thing I should bin if I want a fairer world and encourage younger bands.

But I'm weak and I love it too much, so I see as many newer bands as I can. A little struggle and poverty is good for creating better music.
 
Epping said:
It's bollocks.. for instance Mariah Carey in December had 30 odd million streams on Spotify yet gets not much more than a grand
Click to expand...

She also has an estimated net worth of £240 million. If I had that kind of money at 50 I wouldn't give a flying fuck how much more I was making.

www.express.co.uk

Mariah Carey net worth: Staggering fortune she made from All I Want For Christmas Is You

MARIAH CAREY is best known as a singer, actress and television judge. She has had a string of number one songs during her career and earned a huge fortune. What is her net worth?
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk
 

Back
Top