231

How are musicians supposed to survive on $0.00173 per stream? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/music@lemmy.world

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Dangdoggo@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

This is a moot argument. You're saying the system doesn't support artists and that artists shouldn't expect it to. Why not? Why can't the system be changed? Streams should not be equivalent to tweets and it's dumb to think they should be.

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s not entirely moot because it means competition is increased many fold.

It doesn’t mitigate how Spotify behaves, but the market dynamic was changed by tech putting a serviceable studio is everyone’s bedroom.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

and shit tons more people probably listen to music now im guessing.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ask the nearly completely dead newspaper industry or the dying book publishing industry. History repeats itself.

This artistic medium has met its proverbial printing press. The way to get paid for music is not by streams. They're worthless. I could get more streams than your favorite local Indy band using just white noise. Streams are worthless. About as valuable as getting eyes on any comment in any thread. Music is commoditized.

Just as writing was.