Two news stories.

.

One: "This is the most streamed artist on Spotify of 2014".

.

Decide for yourself what this says about the state of music in 2014, but Spotify just revealed that Ed Sheeran was its most streamed artist this year.

.
The British singer-songwriter has racked up more than 860 million listens across the globe so far in 2014 on the world’s biggest subscription-based, streaming-music platform. His latest record, x, was also the most played album this year, racking up 430 million listens. x has recieved generally positive reviews, with a 67% score on Metacritic, although the Independent on Sunday called it “authentically uninspiring”.

.

Two: "Ed Sheeran’s X becomes a million-seller"

.

Ed Sheeran's X has become a million-seller in the UK.

.
Data released by the Official Charts Company and music trade body BPI reveals that X has reached million-selling status and in doing so becomes the first artist to achieve the feat within a calendar year since Emeli Sande's Our Version Of Events in 2012.

.
X - which has amassed sales in excess of of 1.005m - places Ed in an elite group of British artists who have achieved the landmark in the UK over the past few years, including Adele in 2011 (21 and 19), Take That in 2010 (Progress) and Susan Boyle in 2009 (I Dreamed a Dream).

.

Like Bart I was also one of those kids that sat around and recorded singles AND albums off of the radio when I was a kid (Yes, my local radio station would play the hot new albums in FULL on Friday nights.) My parents also bought records and had a decent little collection. SO, even in the early 80s (and well before) the model was there: the ability to have free and paid for music is the way to make this industry work

The problem is we kids grew up and having "collections" wasn't as important as it was to our parents, at least when we started having to pay for it ourselves. Disposable income for our generation (at least in America, can't say worldwide) is not even close to what our parents had, and when you have less money the first things to go are things you can still get for free, and the internet made getting free music even easier. (Not to mention that the music sale bubble of the 90's was gonna pop once people realized that they were just replacing their old albums with CD versions that WEREN'T indestructible like they advertised and were getting duped into buying rehash after rehash.)

I know a lot of people love to scream the internet is killing the industry. I don't think so. There's a difference between "can't buy" and "won't buy". Once I started making money to the point where my disposable income was significant enough to allow me to buy records again, guess what? I started back buying physical media. Do I buy as much as I pirate? Hell no. Over half of the crap I pirate I still wouldn't buy even if I could, just like half of the stuff I used to listen to on the radio I didn't ask my parents to buy. Do I buy as much as my parents did? Hell no. They had high salaries and a two income household. People still buy music. If they didn't Taylor Swift wouldn't be able to complain while sitting in a 5-star hotel.

[Edited 12/4/14 5:26am]

BartVanHemelen said:

Aerogram said:

17 dollars for a million plays...

.

How much does an artist get for one play of one record on the radio? How many people are listening then?

.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...orke-says/

.

So, from the Guardian again, how much does radio play earn?
Radio: A play for a three-minute song on Radio 2 generates £59.73 (collected by PRS for Music) for the songwriters, and a similar figure (collected by PPL PPL -0.09%) is split between the label and the performing artists.
UK radio pays a lot more than most other radio systems. But let’s stick with this and assume that our complainer was both the songwriter and musician, and he owns his own recordings (ie, no label in there). He gets £120 or so from one play on Radio 2. That radio station has a 13 million or so weekly audience. Let’s say, just because we have to pick some number, that there are half a million listeners at that precise moment that his tune is playing.
He’s getting 0.00024 pounds per listener. Or 0.024p per listener.
We now need to correct The Guardian’s figures. They’re all arts graduates over there so they tend not to get on well with numbers. 5,000 Spotify plays brought in £20. That’s not the 0.004 pence per stream they say it is, that’s 0.4 pence per stream. They’ve got it right if it’s 0.004 pounds per stream, which is indeed 0.4 pence.
So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets .024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence.
So, umm, if Spotify is paying 16 times what the radio station is in what manner is the Spotify royalty too small?

I've heard lots of well-known and legitimate artists complain that they are underpaid on internet streaming services.

I've never heard any artist complain about what they are paid for radio play.

So unless you know something these artists don't, then clearly there's a disparity. Guys like Iggy Pop and Lou Reed didn't complain for no reason.

BartVanHemelen said:

Two news stories.

.

One: "This is the most streamed artist on Spotify of 2014".

.

Decide for yourself what this says about the state of music in 2014, but Spotify just revealed that Ed Sheeran was its most streamed artist this year.

.
The British singer-songwriter has racked up more than 860 million listens across the globe so far in 2014 on the world’s biggest subscription-based, streaming-music platform. His latest record, x, was also the most played album this year, racking up 430 million listens. x has recieved generally positive reviews, with a 67% score on Metacritic, although the Independent on Sunday called it “authentically uninspiring”.

.

Two: "Ed Sheeran’s X becomes a million-seller"

.

Ed Sheeran's X has become a million-seller in the UK.

.
Data released by the Official Charts Company and music trade body BPI reveals that X has reached million-selling status and in doing so becomes the first artist to achieve the feat within a calendar year since Emeli Sande's Our Version Of Events in 2012.

.
X - which has amassed sales in excess of of 1.005m - places Ed in an elite group of British artists who have achieved the landmark in the UK over the past few years, including Adele in 2011 (21 and 19), Take That in 2010 (Progress) and Susan Boyle in 2009 (I Dreamed a Dream).

.

If we use an average of $0.007 per stream (the OP listed rates from $0.006 to $0.0084), then the Ed Sheeran's record label has made $6,020,000 from streaming. Sheeran's personal take is going to be some percentage of that. Let's say he gets $2,000,000.

Can you imagine a business model where you have to sell almost 1 billion units to make almost as much as a back-up shortstop in major league baseball? And remember - this is the MOST successful artist.

Holy moley, you could generate 100 million streams - that's 100,000,000 - and the whole take would be $700,000. You'd have to sell your product to 1/3 of everyone in America to make as much as a CPA.

Yikes.

Fact:

My album has 10 songs. 9 of these were streamed once this last month on Spotify. For that I recieved $0.05 in payment. I have total ownership to my music, and will get paid 1 dollar if my songs are being streamed in total of 180 times. I know it sounds hilarious to anyone that doesn't know me personally, as this is like the epic flop. However I'm proud of my music, and just don't think it has found its way to the right crowd yet, and I'm also still developing my sound and songwriting. However the point is that 1 dollar for 180 streams is not really representing the value of 180 people listening to a song. If you played one song on a pub for 180 people that chose to listen to you, you wouldn't expect 1 dollar for it, would you?

180 streams equals 1 dollar for an artist that has 100% ownership to his song. That's death to all independent music except concerts and maybe physical copies if anyone still buys them. I don't know many of that species.

In Norway you got to atleast earn 2000 dollars a month to be able to pay your monthly bills and eat cheap food. 2000 dollars are the same as 360 000 streams. That means you have to be streamed 360 000 times every month to make ends meet. On top of that alot of small arenas wants musicians to play for free, or play for a door split deal. Also most clubs, bars or arenas nowadays would rather rent a dj. They only need to pay for one dude playing, and people will dance and have fun. Band music is dying now. People have no problem listening to it, but they rather pay for video games, parties at home with spotify and sports.

So basically yes, the internet is death to many bands and musicians, and especially those who aint big yet. But like always, there are ways to make it. You just gotta be creative and find new ways.

Replica said:

Fact:

My album has 10 songs. 9 of these were streamed once this last month on Spotify. For that I recieved $0.05 in payment. I have total ownership to my music, and will get paid 1 dollar if my songs are being streamed in total of 180 times. I know it sounds hilarious to anyone that doesn't know me personally, as this is like the epic flop. However I'm proud of my music, and just don't think it has found its way to the right crowd yet, and I'm also still developing my sound and songwriting. However the point is that 1 dollar for 180 streams is not really representing the value of 180 people listening to a song. If you played one song on a pub for 180 people that chose to listen to you, you wouldn't expect 1 dollar for it, would you?

180 streams equals 1 dollar for an artist that has 100% ownership to his song. That's death to all independent music except concerts and maybe physical copies if anyone still buys them. I don't know many of that species.

In Norway you got to atleast earn 2000 dollars a month to be able to pay your monthly bills and eat cheap food. 2000 dollars are the same as 360 000 streams. That means you have to be streamed 360 000 times every month to make ends meet. On top of that alot of small arenas wants musicians to play for free, or play for a door split deal. Also most clubs, bars or arenas nowadays would rather rent a dj. They only need to pay for one dude playing, and people will dance and have fun. Band music is dying now. People have no problem listening to it, but they rather pay for video games, parties at home with spotify and sports.

So basically yes, the internet is death to many bands and musicians, and especially those who aint big yet. But like always, there are ways to make it. You just gotta be creative and find new ways.

And you think BEFORE the internet bands that weren't big yet made money? Or most bands in general? People tend to forget that for every Prince there were plenty of other artists that didnt make crap, or bands that got signed and got dropped. No offense, but if your album is only getting 9 streams then you have bigger problems, and should probably give it away to garner interest, which is what the internet IS good for.

Streaming unfortunately is here to stay - and that's appalling for acts and writers. Pennies do not replace pounds.

1contessa said:

Personally, I think that artists today are getting paid exactly how they should be (I'm talking right now while money is tight) considering the awful music they're making, Prince excluded. Let's face it, how many of them really have the talent to call themselves musicians/singers. Most of their stuff is auto tuned and made by machines. It's the artists of yesteryear that deserved to be paid the type of money some of these so called "artists of today" make. It's true artists like Prince, and those before Prince, and during his era that truly deserves the big bucks!

[Edited 10/21/14 14:25pm]

Although I agree that music nowadays isnt the best, and the artists arent the most talented.

But bad and cheap music has existed since the 50's Rock'n Roll era.

"I love you baby, Baby I love you, baby baby baby......" was a comon theme amoungst the cheap pop rock songs back then.

Even the Beatle's first single was a simplistic Love Me Do. Very reminiscent of a shit Black Eyed Peas song.

.

Yes, it seems that artists used to work harder for their fame and fortune in previous decades. But there has ALWAYS been your crappy pop music to go along with it.

I find the idea that people won't pay for music strange.
They will, but they're not willing to do it at the prices currently offered.


Remember, music isn't the only thing that's pirated. Software is pirated too.

But, software is thriving now, and music is not. I think it boils down to

how much you have to shell out for the product, and how the product

makes you feel. Let's face it--software is more moving and immersive

to many people than music is these days. And you can download really

great stuff for 99 cents to 5.99 (or up). And, software offers 'freemium'

models where once the consumer is into a game, they end up shelling

out money for additions to it, even if the game was originally free.

Not everyone likes that model, but it works.

Music has always been pirated. But, can anyone remember the days

of the Commodore 64? I owned hundreds of titles, and didn't pay

anything for them. I got my stuff from my aunt who got her stuff

from Buster Etarip (the famous Commodore 64 game pirate). The

titles were 30 and 40 bucks in 1985, which is EXPENSIVE.

These days, folks are more than willing to shell out 99 cents for a

convienient title on the Apple app store (a genius Apple solution), and

software makers become instant millionaires.

Aerogram said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

And once again you're making shit up. I said no such thing, otherwise you woudl have quoted me.

.

Did you ever read what Mick Jagger said, about the 25 years when the mus...otsa money?

I'm not making shit up when you show up on a thread seemingly defending the concept that artists are being paid their just royalty from Spotify.

As for Jagger, he's got it wrong. It wasn't just in the music business that people did not make as much money before 1970 from the more technical arts. All sorts of actors and directors were paid relatively low "company wages" before the sixties and it got more on the side of individuals until 1990, like he states, then things changed.

As a person intensely interested in music and movies, I do have a problem with the way art is remunerated. Mick Jagger is rich enough to be philosophical about it. In the meantime, we need to fix the problem of creators not getting paid as it does tend to be reflected in the stuff we see and hear.

Frankly, I don't know how I feel about the broad issue being discussed here, but this comment intrigues me. Do you believe the quality of an artist's output improves (or declines) proportionate to how much money they make? And if so, do you mean the mere production value of their work sees this shift or the intrinsic quality of their compositions?

[Edited 12/4/14 19:35pm]

KlyphIsBackAgain said:

This thread is about 15+ years too late.....so I'll wind back the years.

Filesharing in all it's forms rendered any medium that can be coded into data worthless.

some token gestures are still made from rights owners to protect their art, but they are pissing into the wind.

Putting my self forward as an average consumer, I have a wall of old dvds, records & cd's at home as I'm sure many of us do, but I havn't paid for any media in physical or virtual form for 10 years maybe more.

I shell out loads to go to gigs so at least I'm contributing to the artists in my own little way(after the venue/promoter etc take their cut)

.....and subsequently We will never get that all singing all dancing 8.1 Bluray Prince live concert as long he can be wheeled on stage..it's all he and many artists have left. sad but true.

jon1967 said:

Metallicas always let fans bootleg,record, etc .. they stream concerts on their website .. Seems everythings worked ok for them

They got boo'd like crazy at MTV's music awards after they went head-to-head with Napster.

But, that was because folks didn't understand their stance. They've always been pro bootleg, and even think their live performances are worthy of recording.

The issue they had was with free distributions of offiically recorded albums. They were opposed to only those--not demos and bootlegs of unreleased material.

databank said:

IDK what to think about it. I hear a lot of millionaires complaining about illegal downloads and streaming fees, that is probably about 0,05% of the people making money from a professional music career in the developped world. I'd like to hear from the other 99,95% because they hardly ever complain. I wonder how come...

.

they do complain. they just dont have the fame to be qouted in major news sources. and as long as legal streaming is a joke for artists, and illegal downloading steals from them, the %99.95 will never be famous enough to be heard from.

BartVanHemelen said:

Aerogram said:

17 dollars for a million plays...

.

How much does an artist get for one play of one record on the radio? How many people are listening then?

.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...orke-says/

.

So, from the Guardian again, how much does radio play earn?
Radio: A play for a three-minute song on Radio 2 generates £59.73 (collected by PRS for Music) for the songwriters, and a similar figure (collected by PPL PPL -0.09%) is split between the label and the performing artists.
UK radio pays a lot more than most other radio systems. But let’s stick with this and assume that our complainer was both the songwriter and musician, and he owns his own recordings (ie, no label in there). He gets £120 or so from one play on Radio 2. That radio station has a 13 million or so weekly audience. Let’s say, just because we have to pick some number, that there are half a million listeners at that precise moment that his tune is playing.
He’s getting 0.00024 pounds per listener. Or 0.024p per listener.
We now need to correct The Guardian’s figures. They’re all arts graduates over there so they tend not to get on well with numbers. 5,000 Spotify plays brought in £20. That’s not the 0.004 pence per stream they say it is, that’s 0.4 pence per stream. They’ve got it right if it’s 0.004 pounds per stream, which is indeed 0.4 pence.
So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets .024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence.
So, umm, if Spotify is paying 16 times what the radio station is in what manner is the Spotify royalty too small?

Bart, you seem to be forgetting a major difference between radio and Spotify: radio is pushing songs out to a vast number of people whether they like it or not. In most cases the vast number of listeners have not asked for that specific song that is being played at any given moment. It's similar to pushing out one particular recording to 500 million people without their consent. Remember how that ended up? What fraction of that 500 million even bothered to listen in? Far less than 1/16, right?

Spotify, on the other hand, streams you the song you have chosen and pressed 'play' on – a song you have actively expressed interest in. It's an entirely different target audience, therefore it would be fair to pay rights holders a much higher royalty than the disgraceful pennies they are paying today.

[Edited 12/7/14 16:34pm]

Replica said:

Fact:

My album has 10 songs. 9 of these were streamed once this last month on Spotify. For that I recieved $0.05 in payment. I have total ownership to my music, and will get paid 1 dollar if my songs are being streamed in total of 180 times. I know it sounds hilarious to anyone that doesn't know me personally, as this is like the epic flop. However I'm proud of my music, and just don't think it has found its way to the right crowd yet, and I'm also still developing my sound and songwriting. However the point is that 1 dollar for 180 streams is not really representing the value of 180 people listening to a song. If you played one song on a pub for 180 people that chose to listen to you, you wouldn't expect 1 dollar for it, would you?

180 streams equals 1 dollar for an artist that has 100% ownership to his song. That's death to all independent music except concerts and maybe physical copies if anyone still buys them. I don't know many of that species.

In Norway you got to atleast earn 2000 dollars a month to be able to pay your monthly bills and eat cheap food. 2000 dollars are the same as 360 000 streams. That means you have to be streamed 360 000 times every month to make ends meet. On top of that alot of small arenas wants musicians to play for free, or play for a door split deal. Also most clubs, bars or arenas nowadays would rather rent a dj. They only need to pay for one dude playing, and people will dance and have fun. Band music is dying now. People have no problem listening to it, but they rather pay for video games, parties at home with spotify and sports.

So basically yes, the internet is death to many bands and musicians, and especially those who aint big yet. But like always, there are ways to make it. You just gotta be creative and find new ways.

I get your point, but you are looking at it the wrong way. You are unknown, why should people buy your music? How have you promoted it? Why do you deserve to make a living only doing music? You are not a band, you are a solo act. Under any bridge or any subway in any major city in the world there is a guy strumming on guitar singing songs he wrote with a can out collecting money. What makes you different from him? He is at least promoting his work. The Internet is helping you. Otherwise you would have zero outlet. Do you see what I am getting at? You may be talented, but if you want to perform, you have to promote yourself.

I also have an independent album. I play in a band located in South China, between Hong Kong, Macao, and Canton. Since 2009, we have sold 42,000 copies, all after shows or before shows at events. Cost us about a dollar to put together, we sell them for about 6. So it is not a lot of money, but it does get your music out there if you want. The album is sold on a USB along with pictures, news articles, video footage and if we have played that venue before, a live recording of a previous visit. We have zero of our original songs on the internet. We ask people not to upload the content and people are usually pretty good about it. There is always the occasional cell phone video that pops up on the Chinese version of Youtube, but it is usually a cover song.

We announce and promote gigs on as many websites as we can that are local to the venue. People that have seen the band before talk about it on message boards and chat rooms. We make far more playing live than we do selling the albums, but that is the way of everyone today. We all also have full-time day jobs. A good musician will always be able to find work. It was true before the internet and it is true now.

leonche64 said:

Replica said:

Fact:

My album has 10 songs. 9 of these were streamed once this last month on Spotify. For that I recieved $0.05 in payment. I have total ownership to my music, and will get paid 1 dollar if my songs are being streamed in total of 180 times. I know it sounds hilarious to anyone that doesn't know me personally, as this is like the epic flop. However I'm proud of my music, and just don't think it has found its way to the right crowd yet, and I'm also still developing my sound and songwriting. However the point is that 1 dollar for 180 streams is not really representing the value of 180 people listening to a song. If you played one song on a pub for 180 people that chose to listen to you, you wouldn't expect 1 dollar for it, would you?

180 streams equals 1 dollar for an artist that has 100% ownership to his song. That's death to all independent music except concerts and maybe physical copies if anyone still buys them. I don't know many of that species.

In Norway you got to atleast earn 2000 dollars a month to be able to pay your monthly bills and eat cheap food. 2000 dollars are the same as 360 000 streams. That means you have to be streamed 360 000 times every month to make ends meet. On top of that alot of small arenas wants musicians to play for free, or play for a door split deal. Also most clubs, bars or arenas nowadays would rather rent a dj. They only need to pay for one dude playing, and people will dance and have fun. Band music is dying now. People have no problem listening to it, but they rather pay for video games, parties at home with spotify and sports.

So basically yes, the internet is death to many bands and musicians, and especially those who aint big yet. But like always, there are ways to make it. You just gotta be creative and find new ways.

I get your point, but you are looking at it the wrong way. You are unknown, why should people buy your music? How have you promoted it? Why do you deserve to make a living only doing music? You are not a band, you are a solo act. Under any bridge or any subway in any major city in the world there is a guy strumming on guitar singing songs he wrote with a can out collecting money. What makes you different from him? He is at least promoting his work. The Internet is helping you. Otherwise you would have zero outlet. Do you see what I am getting at? You may be talented, but if you want to perform, you have to promote yourself.

I also have an independent album. I play in a band located in South China, between Hong Kong, Macao, and Canton. Since 2009, we have sold 42,000 copies, all after shows or before shows at events. Cost us about a dollar to put together, we sell them for about 6. So it is not a lot of money, but it does get your music out there if you want. The album is sold on a USB along with pictures, news articles, video footage and if we have played that venue before, a live recording of a previous visit. We have zero of our original songs on the internet. We ask people not to upload the content and people are usually pretty good about it. There is always the occasional cell phone video that pops up on the Chinese version of Youtube, but it is usually a cover song.

We announce and promote gigs on as many websites as we can that are local to the venue. People that have seen the band before talk about it on message boards and chat rooms. We make far more playing live than we do selling the albums, but that is the way of everyone today. We all also have full-time day jobs. A good musician will always be able to find work. It was true before the internet and it is true now.

Actually, I just used myself as an example of total ownership, I was not trying to say I deserve anything. I never said that. I was simply presenting simple math for those who don't know. 360 000 plays a month equals making ends meet for one person that has 100% ownership to his music. It just proves that we are living in times where nobody but the absolute biggest names are actually making any money on streaming. It's just simply the truth. The money has always been in playing live, but back in the days both artists and record companies earned alot on records too. They would even often rent a symphony orchestra to add som textures to a song, and record this stuff on alot more expensive equipment, with alot more expensive and long recording sessions. Recording on tape was not like recording digitally. It's new times and new strategies. Thanks for your advice, though I was not trying to make excuses for my own lack of success.

Funknroll is Prince most played song from AOA on Spotify. It has ca. 1 370 000 plays. That song has given him probably about $ 7000 if he doesn't have to share his income with anyone else. For his whole album, lets say he has earned maybe close to $ 70 000

That's pretty nice for a small indie act. However next month he won't have the same numbers.

check out how much Bette Midler makes with Spotify..........

http://www.billboard.com/...ver-artist

3rdeyedude said:

check out how much Bette Midler makes with Spotify..........

http://www.billboard.com/...ver-artist

Seriously though, artists like Bette need to be careful about complianing about shit like this. She's also a movie star, broadway star, touring act, what have you. Is she really complaining about what she gets paid via Spotify? As opposed to what? Having "Wind Beneath my Wings" played on some fake-jazz radio station once a month?

When rich and famous artists complain about "artists rights" only after realzing that THEY'RE not getting paid, leaves me a bit cold. I'm looking at you Prince.

[Edited 12/8/14 16:43pm]

Replica said:

leonche64 said:

I get your point, but you are looking at it the wrong way. You are unknown, why should people buy your music? How have you promoted it? Why do you deserve to make a living only doing music? You are not a band, you are a solo act. Under any bridge or any subway in any major city in the world there is a guy strumming on guitar singing songs he wrote with a can out collecting money. What makes you different from him? He is at least promoting his work. The Internet is helping you. Otherwise you would have zero outlet. Do you see what I am getting at? You may be talented, but if you want to perform, you have to promote yourself.

I also have an independent album. I play in a band located in South China, between Hong Kong, Macao, and Canton. Since 2009, we have sold 42,000 copies, all after shows or before shows at events. Cost us about a dollar to put together, we sell them for about 6. So it is not a lot of money, but it does get your music out there if you want. The album is sold on a USB along with pictures, news articles, video footage and if we have played that venue before, a live recording of a previous visit. We have zero of our original songs on the internet. We ask people not to upload the content and people are usually pretty good about it. There is always the occasional cell phone video that pops up on the Chinese version of Youtube, but it is usually a cover song.

We announce and promote gigs on as many websites as we can that are local to the venue. People that have seen the band before talk about it on message boards and chat rooms. We make far more playing live than we do selling the albums, but that is the way of everyone today. We all also have full-time day jobs. A good musician will always be able to find work. It was true before the internet and it is true now.

Actually, I just used myself as an example of total ownership, I was not trying to say I deserve anything. I never said that. I was simply presenting simple math for those who don't know. 360 000 plays a month equals making ends meet for one person that has 100% ownership to his music. It just proves that we are living in times where nobody but the absolute biggest names are actually making any money on streaming. It's just simply the truth. The money has always been in playing live, but back in the days both artists and record companies earned alot on records too. They would even often rent a symphony orchestra to add som textures to a song, and record this stuff on alot more expensive equipment, with alot more expensive and long recording sessions. Recording on tape was not like recording digitally. It's new times and new strategies. Thanks for your advice, though I was not trying to make excuses for my own lack of success.

Funknroll is Prince most played song from AOA on Spotify. It has ca. 1 370 000 plays. That song has given him probably about $ 7000 if he doesn't have to share his income with anyone else. For his whole album, lets say he has earned maybe close to $ 70 000

That's pretty nice for a small indie act. However next month he won't have the same numbers.

I missed your emphasis on streaming, sorry about that. When I said "deserved" I was speaking methaphorically. Your examples are spot on.

leonche64 said:

Replica said:

Actually, I just used myself as an example of total ownership, I was not trying to say I deserve anything. I never said that. I was simply presenting simple math for those who don't know. 360 000 plays a month equals making ends meet for one person that has 100% ownership to his music. It just proves that we are living in times where nobody but the absolute biggest names are actually making any money on streaming. It's just simply the truth. The money has always been in playing live, but back in the days both artists and record companies earned alot on records too. They would even often rent a symphony orchestra to add som textures to a song, and record this stuff on alot more expensive equipment, with alot more expensive and long recording sessions. Recording on tape was not like recording digitally. It's new times and new strategies. Thanks for your advice, though I was not trying to make excuses for my own lack of success.

Funknroll is Prince most played song from AOA on Spotify. It has ca. 1 370 000 plays. That song has given him probably about $ 7000 if he doesn't have to share his income with anyone else. For his whole album, lets say he has earned maybe close to $ 70 000

That's pretty nice for a small indie act. However next month he won't have the same numbers.

I missed your emphasis on streaming, sorry about that. When I said "deserved" I was speaking methaphorically. Your examples are spot on.

It's all good. I appreciate a good advice anyways. Thank you! I see now that it could look like I was bitter or something, hehe. But actually I'm not. I'm perfectly aware that I would need other strategies to make it work . But let's discuss prince again. Atleast Prince is playing alot live, so he'll make alot of money that way, as well as royalties from radio plays etc.