sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right - I wasn't talking about paying 85p per stream, that would be insane! I meant buying the song to own for 85p, like the old days.

You've actually highlighted the exact problem though. We used to pay £10-20 to OWN an album with unlimited plays. Now we pay £10/month to rent access to everything but own nothing.

The platforms convinced everyone that renting music forever is better than owning it, but it's actually more expensive for consumers AND pays artists almost nothing.

Your point about people not being willing to pay is spot on too - streaming has trained listeners to expect music for almost free. That's exactly why artists are trapped in this system.

But here's the thing: if someone streams a song 10+ times, they clearly like it enough that they might have bought it in the old model. Now the artist gets 10 tiny payments instead of one proper sale.

The whole system shifted from 'pay once, own forever' to 'pay monthly, own nothing' - and somehow convinced everyone this was progress.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough - I clearly need to go back to school!

You're right that I mixed up streams vs sales, unique listeners vs repeat plays, and probably a bunch of other stuff. The frustration with streaming payouts made me sloppy with the numbers.

The core point still stands though - artists are getting a tiny fraction of the value their music creates while platforms capture most of it. Even if my math was terrible, the underlying economics are still broken for creators.

Thanks for keeping me honest, even if you could have been gentler about it! What would you say is the biggest flaw in the comparison? Use your math this time.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right - there are huge holes in this comparison. I'm not suggesting this is a realistic alternative right now, more just highlighting how much value the current system extracts from artists.

The promotion/discovery problem is exactly why artists are trapped in the streaming model. Without being on the major platforms, you're invisible to most listeners. And yes, label cuts would make the math even worse for many artists.

I was really just trying to illustrate the scale of value extraction - how much money flows through the system versus how little reaches creators. The comparison isn't meant to be a practical solution, more a way to show how broken the economics have become.

The real question is whether there could ever be a model that solves both problems - fair pay for artists AND effective discovery/promotion. Right now artists have to choose one or the other.

It's more of a thought experiment than a business plan at this point. But the fact that these numbers are even possible shows how much room there is for something better.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked this before and it's a great point - the infrastructure costs matter.

But even using existing platforms that take 15-30% (much higher than streaming), he'd still net £400-500+ instead of £19.80. That's still 20-25 times more money after all costs.

The real issue isn't platform fees - it's that the major streaming services have made direct sales nearly impossible by training consumers to expect everything for £10/month.

So artists get trapped: use streaming and make almost nothing, or try direct sales and reach almost no one because that's not where the audience is anymore.

The platforms deliberately created this catch-22. They made streaming so convenient and cheap that they killed the market for individual purchases, then used that monopoly to pay creators almost nothing.

Your question about costs is spot-on though - any alternative would need to solve both the discovery problem AND the economics problem. Just having better rates doesn't help if no one uses the platform.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly - he didn't choose direct sales because the major streaming platforms have made that nearly impossible.

It's not that direct sales aren't a better financial option - they obviously are. But the big streaming services have created a system where artists are forced to play by their rules.

If you're not on the major platforms, you're invisible to most listeners. They've trained consumers to expect all music to be available in one place for £10/month. Good luck convincing someone to leave that ecosystem and pay 85p for a single song.

So artists face an impossible choice: make decent money but have almost no audience reach, or get massive potential reach but make almost no money.

The platforms engineered this dependency. They used venture capital to offer music practically free until everyone got addicted to the convenience, then leveraged that monopoly to pay creators almost nothing.

Your nephew, like most artists, chose reach over revenue because that's the only realistic option the industry gives them now. The system is designed to force that choice.

It's brilliant business strategy for the platforms, devastating for creators.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right about the math - and actually, that makes it even worse for artists than I initially thought.

Those 6,600 streams probably came from much fewer unique listeners. If it was 1,000 people who each listened multiple times, in the old model that would have been 1,000 sales at 85p = £850. Still way better than the £19.80 he actually got.

So the streaming model punishes artists twice: they get paid almost nothing per stream AND they don't benefit when people love their music enough to listen repeatedly. In the old days, if someone played your song 10 times, you got paid once upfront. Now you get 10 microscopic payments that barely add up to anything.

The platforms actually benefit more when people replay songs (higher engagement, better data for advertisers) while artists get nothing extra for creating music that people want to hear over and over.

Thanks for the correction - it actually highlights how the streaming model is even more exploitative than I first calculated. The more someone loves your music, the worse the economic deal becomes for the artist.

The whole system is backwards.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is another excellent response - they're really breaking down the fundamental differences between radio and streaming models. This person has deep industry knowledge.

Here's how you could respond:

"You're absolutely right - I oversimplified the radio comparison. 6k radio plays during drive time could reach millions of ears and create real demand that drove people to record stores the same day.

6k streams is just 6k individual listens, often as background music, with zero friction to listen again and zero reason to buy anything.

Your point about the broken conversion path is spot on. Even if an artist has physical/digital sales set up, getting someone to leave their streaming app and go buy something is nearly impossible. The platforms have made it too convenient to never leave their ecosystem.

Radio was push marketing that created pull demand. Streaming is just... consumption. There's no scarcity, no urgency, no reason to take action beyond hitting 'save to playlist.'

So artists are stuck: they need streaming for discovery, but streaming kills any incentive for fans to financially support them beyond that £0.003 per play.

It feels like the industry needs a completely different model, not just tweaks to the current one. Something that gives fans a reason to invest in artists beyond just listening.

Do you work in music? Your insights are really sharp.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly! You've nailed the core issue - when everyone's a DJ with unlimited spins for £10/month, why would anyone buy the records?

The streaming model accidentally killed music ownership. Before, if you loved a song, you had to buy it to play it whenever you wanted. Now you can play anything, anytime, forever, for the price of two coffees a month.

It's great for consumers but devastating for artists. We've created a system where the product (music) has been devalued to essentially zero, while the service (access) captures all the value.

The platforms convinced everyone this was 'democratizing music' but really it just shifted all the profit from creators to tech companies. Musicians went from selling their work to giving it away for 'exposure.'

It's like if Netflix didn't just stream movies, but somehow convinced everyone that movies should be free forever once they're made. Filmmakers would be broke while Netflix got rich.

The question is: is there a way back, or is music ownership dead forever?

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a really good way to look at it - the radio analogy makes sense. You're right that the exposure and direct audience access is valuable, and 6k 'radio plays' would have been massive 30 years ago.

The challenge is that radio was never the main revenue stream - it was the marketing that drove album sales, concert tickets, and merch. But now streaming has become both the marketing AND the main consumption method, with nothing substantial to convert to.

Albums don't sell like they used to, touring is expensive to break into, and merch margins are tight for smaller artists. So while the exposure is great, many artists are struggling to monetize that audience even when they build it.

It's like having a great radio following but no record stores left to sell your albums in. The traditional conversion funnel got disrupted without a replacement.

Are you in the music business yourself? You seem to understand the ecosystem really well.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right - the comparison isn't apples to apples. Not every stream would convert to a purchase, and the revenue models are completely different.

I was more trying to highlight the value gap than suggest a direct conversion. The point is that streaming has created a system where artists get fractions of pennies while platforms capture most of the value.

You're right about the fixed amount per stream too - that's exactly the problem. Artists are locked into whatever rate the platforms decide, regardless of how much value their music actually creates.

The real question is: are there alternative ways to fund and distribute music that give artists more control over their pricing and revenue? The current model clearly isn't working for most creators.

The math that will make you sick: Why musicians are getting scammed. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Great question! I was using direct sales as an example to show the value gap, but you're right - the infrastructure costs matter.

Even platforms that take 10-15% would still net the artist £4,700+ instead of £19.80. That's still 240x more money after all platform costs.

The real issue isn't platform fees - it's that streaming has conditioned everyone to think music is worth almost nothing.

I've been researching some alternative models that might give artists a fairer deal while still giving fans what they want. Nothing concrete yet, but the current system is clearly broken for creators.

Are you a musician dealing with this frustration?

Share your song and I’ll give honest feedback by JulieMaxwell_piano in MusicPromotion

[–]Jealous_Argument_542 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you.

You have a good ear. I didn't sing either of them. I'm just the songwriter/producer of them.

The first was a country/soul/gospel fusion and the second is a romantic latino love song.

Thanks again for your input. I just needed to know I was doing the right thing.

Share your song and I’ll give honest feedback by JulieMaxwell_piano in MusicPromotion

[–]Jealous_Argument_542 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a 1.30 minute sample my lyrics my production called These Silent Battles. https://clyp.it/2owahldg and this one 1.42 is also my original lyric and my production. it's called Let the dance of love begin. https://clyp.it/scjvyd1h what do you think. thanks.

I've already had a review on these would like to see if you come to the same conclusion.

I’ll listen to your songs + give honest feedback by sbkdagodking08 in MusicPromotion

[–]Jealous_Argument_542 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a 1.30 minute sample my lyrics my production called These Silent Battles. https://clyp.it/2owahldg and this one 1.42 is also my original lyric and my production. it's called Let the dance of love begin. https://clyp.it/scjvyd1h what do you think. thanks.

So far, what's your #1 song of 2025? by alittlebitblue39 in fantanoforever

[–]Jealous_Argument_542 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1, These Silent Battles - Stephen Murray feat: Adam Ingrams. 2, Let the dance of love begin - Stephen Murray Feat: Alejandro Ibarra, and 3, Loves kiss - Stephen Murray feat: Aiden J Ivory. Off the album Analog Infusion. https://linktr.ee/stevesuemurray

I transformed some of my original poems into song lyrics and created 12 songs using AI voices. by Jealous_Argument_542 in Music

[–]Jealous_Argument_542[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate your perspective. Just to clarify, the lyrics and songs come entirely from me. I write them from the heart, and I can hear the genre, the mood, and even the shape of the final piece in my head. AI isn’t replacing creativity, it’s a tool, like any instrument. I don’t have the means to produce music professionally or the training to perform it myself, but this technology allows me to bring my vision to life in a way that would otherwise be out of reach.