<story><title>80% of musicians earn less than £200 a year from streaming</title><url>https://www.nme.com/news/music/82-per-cent-of-musicians-earn-less-than-200-a-year-from-streaming-2833510</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>woeirua</author><text>The fundamental problem isn&amp;#x27;t streaming, as much as it is that natural systems follow power law distributions. There will &lt;i&gt;always&lt;/i&gt; be superstars that make the majority of the money, and tons and tons of wannabe artists that make almost nothing. That was just as true 20 years ago as it is today. If anything, streaming makes it possible to find those smaller artists and sample what they&amp;#x27;re making without having to go to some esoteric store and pay $20 for an album that you&amp;#x27;ve never heard before.&lt;p&gt;The system may be broken, but I&amp;#x27;m not sure going back to the old system is the right approach.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jonplackett</author><text>The new system only works because smaller bands are subsidising the bigger ones.&lt;p&gt;For example. I only listen to smaller indie bands on Spotify for a month. I give Spotify my £10 for the month.&lt;p&gt;Does my £10 go to those smaller bands? No. It gets given to Lady Ga Ga because she got 100 bazzillion listens that month. Even though I never listen to her music.&lt;p&gt;Spotify should work out who you’re listening to and give them a direct slice of what you have paid, rather than putting everyone in a pot together and dividing by number of plays.&lt;p&gt;It would be fairer, but it would mean the bigger bands earn less, and expose the fact that streaming really isn’t making anyone enough money.&lt;p&gt;How could it when I’m now paying only £10 a month for what used to cost hundreds?&lt;p&gt;But it’s better than piracy!</text></comment>
<story><title>80% of musicians earn less than £200 a year from streaming</title><url>https://www.nme.com/news/music/82-per-cent-of-musicians-earn-less-than-200-a-year-from-streaming-2833510</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>woeirua</author><text>The fundamental problem isn&amp;#x27;t streaming, as much as it is that natural systems follow power law distributions. There will &lt;i&gt;always&lt;/i&gt; be superstars that make the majority of the money, and tons and tons of wannabe artists that make almost nothing. That was just as true 20 years ago as it is today. If anything, streaming makes it possible to find those smaller artists and sample what they&amp;#x27;re making without having to go to some esoteric store and pay $20 for an album that you&amp;#x27;ve never heard before.&lt;p&gt;The system may be broken, but I&amp;#x27;m not sure going back to the old system is the right approach.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>vlovich123</author><text>Isn&amp;#x27;t that just a truism of the Pareto principle? Is there any field where that&amp;#x27;s not the case? 20% of lawyers make 80% of the money. 20% of doctors make 80% of the money. etc etc.&lt;p&gt;The difference I think is if 80% of professional musicians can&amp;#x27;t make a living &amp;amp; it&amp;#x27;s not clear that&amp;#x27;s actually the case (i.e. streaming isn&amp;#x27;t the only source of revenue). Similarly, music may have a higher &amp;quot;stickiness&amp;quot; for tenacity where people see it as a higher calling for them even if they&amp;#x27;re not making money (vs someone not cutting it as a lawyer&amp;#x2F;doctor to even pay the bills is going to quit &amp;amp; find something else if they weren&amp;#x27;t even weeded out during school).</text></comment>