However, the oversimplification of streaming economics has done more harm than good. I can admit that the details of how artists get paid from music streaming is convoluted. Obviously, Neil Young made his move out of principle, not economics, but the headlines have yet again stirred up the “streaming doesn’t pay” myth. Of course, the irony is that far too many people don’t understand how music streaming economics work to actually appreciate his point. When you take this into account, his stance against Spotify actually becomes quite admirable. I’m sure Neil Young will survive without receiving his approximate $10 monthly streaming royalties from Spotify.- Jeremy Jupiter Jones January 26, 2022įor the record, Neil Young’s catalog earns about 13M streams per month on Spotify alone, which is a little under $45,000 per month. Most are posting inaccurate or misleading information entirely Many are joking that Neil Young is forgoing pennies of revenue with his decision. This week, the headlines of Neil Young removing his catalog from Spotify in protest of Joe Rogan has reignited the social media outcry against Spotify. It regurgitates commonly held harmful beliefs about music streaming (“Streaming services don’t share what percentage of streams come from editorial playlists, but our guess is somewhere around… a lot.”). This one does contain some nuance, but mostly misses the point.
Or this one from Rolling Stone that claims that streaming has widened the income disparity between smaller and bigger artists. Artists Hate It.”, which claims that “The losers are the 99 percent of artists who aren’t at Beyoncé’s level of fame.” This is a vast oversimplification.
I’m constantly amazed by the persistence of the narrative that “music streaming doesn’t pay” - because it’s not simply true.Īrticles like this one from New York Times entitled “Streaming Saved Music.