How Much Does A Songwriter Earn When Pandora Plays His Song 1.16 Million Times?

[Dr Nick]

I think one big difference is that "back in the day" there was the possibility of making a living as a recording artist in a band.

Nowadays what money there is tends to be more in playing live and merchandising.


And this applies to established artists too - I doubt Iron Maiden make much from new material, they probably get far more from their tours, for example.

But they have a smart businessman as a manager, a long-term business plan, and do fine.


Tough world out there...

[Dinosaur David B]

the exposure and accessibility that the streaming means far outweighs the loss of money.

That is a judgement a lot of acts make. But to achieve any significant exposure (i.e. thousands or tens of thousands) requires some other factors, such as professional PR campaigns, song placements in media advertising, etc.


And I agree with you, that I'm far more likely to check out someone new on Spotify than by buying their album. Sadly, this is even true now of bands I like. For example, Black Sabbath 13. I checked it out on Spotify, and had I liked it, I normally would have bought it to support them. But I didn't, so they actually lost a sale because of streaming. And FWIW, I think I only streamed it twice to confirm I didn't like it.


New bands have even less of a shot with me. I will check them out on Spotify, but unless I'm blown away (which almost NEVER happens) I move on quickly. For example, I love The Blue Van, and after hearing them on Spotify, I picked up two of their albums. I thought Rival Sons were pretty good, and streamed them for about a week during the summer, but never bought their music.


So the band has had it's exposure to me, but they didn't make money on me. They could achieve that with YouTube without getting raped by Spotify.


In the pre streaming days, they would get a little less exposure, and I might have to take a chance buying an album -- or these days, a track.

[The Seeker]

I wonder if the streaming model will go the way that sports has.


You could end up with 95% of the Artists working from Global streaming enterprises like Rhapsody, Spotify etc, whilst the big guys handle their own streaming service and charge a little bit more for it.


So Metallica Streaming could start up and charge 5 cents a play. Assuming they make around $2 for every CD they sell, then the break even point is 40 tracks for every user who would have bought the album, but didn't


Big soccer clubs are doing this by having their own rights to show their own games

[Dinosaur David B]

Well one interesting thing -- IMO, is that you can stream your music OR sell an E-album (AIFFs and I think artwork as well) on sites like Bandcamp for no overhead. Your exposure will be less than you'd get with the bigger companies, but you'd pocket virtually ALL of the proceeds. With no middlemen taking their cut. But the onus is on the band to drive people to that site. Bedowyn are doing this, and it appeals to me for Feints as well.


Sell ONE album for $10 and you make $10. You need 1000 plays on Spotify to make $7 -- 1430 plays to make $10.

[Bytor]

I just looked over the accounting for my 2 cds..


The area covering streams :ohwell: :huh:


UNBELIEVABLE!!


Places I've never heard of! RDIO? DEEZER? Last fm? Google music store? Xbox music?


Some actually pay a decent rate compared to the others.

At the end of it all, 30+ pages for $82.55 :ohyeah: :sad:

[Disciple83]

Interesting topic on what seems to be a broken system (probably has been for a long time now). I was wondering though, is it possible to maintain alternative careers in music when the band thing is not generating enough income? For example, how about being a session player? or a hired gun for another band? etc.

[Eclipse II]

Interesting calculator that shows you how much the platforms pay per number of streams:

https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians