Why Streaming is Good for Music.

Streaming is often discussed and frequently debated within the music community. Artist and record companies say it's costing them money. Most listeners love having everything in one place, easily accessible and at a cost they can afford. Some listeners feel like they are better supporting an artist because they don't use a streaming service. In fact they are elitists about it often times. The problem is they are wrong. Streaming isn't going anywhere and it's actually a really good thing.

 We always see the arguments about how a band only makes $0.00686 cents per stream or whatever. But I think you first need to understand how they get paid. Unlike the popular belief they are not paid per stream. It works more like revenue sharing. You can learn more here. quit being cheap and pay for the service you prefer. If you are using the free version you are hurting the artists.

It's easier for people to find your music and listen to your music.

 This is by far the most important point. This increases income for artists in every area of revenue. Simply put you have to be heard.

 It's become insanely easy to find new music in the digital era. You could argue that the market is too saturated. You would be right. You could argue this makes it harder to stand out. This i would vehemently disagree with.

 There can be no denying that an artist has a much higher chance of garnering a meaningful following today than they ever have before. Not everyone is going to be the next big rockstar. But that has always been the case. A band that would have been relegated to a dive bar house band existence can now have hundreds or thousands of fans. By no means are they going to make a living on a fan base that small. But at least they have the chance to turn that fan base into something. Far better than the 5 piss drunk guys who only come to all of their shows because they happen to play at their favorite bar.

 How many bands that play for crowds of 1000+ today do you realistically think could have done that when the only way to get their name out there were fanzines and tape trading? Half? A quarter? Ten percent? Before digital I used to go to the local record store and buy albums based on their cover. I would buy 1 album at a time because that's all I could afford at $20 a pop. I was at best discovering and contributing to the livelihood of 4 bands a month. With streaming I can discover 4 new bands in an hour, and I'm contributing to their cut of royalties.

 Before social media and the ease of access to an artists music streaming platforms have provided it was almost impossible to make it big on your own. The truth is most popular artists were made that way through little of their own effort. No matter how good or bad an artist was it was record labels who paid for airplay. They could just as easily bury you as they could make you a superstar. That's not the case anymore. Sure they still grease hands. But an artist can get their music heard without men in business suits in the digital age.

 The bottom line is streaming is giving artists more exposure in a quicker and easier manner than ever before.

It's a constant source of income.

 So you think you are better than me because you bought the CD or Vinyl? Guess what? You're not!

 If you buy a physical copy of an artist record they make significantly more than 1 stream of that album. Once! Lets use the $0.00 whatever argument. You contributed lets say $5 (unless they are independent or on a cool ass label this may even be over estimating their cut) dollars to that band. You are likely never going to purchase another physical copy of that album. But you will listen to it more than once. Hundreds, maybe thousands of times. Lets say it's 10 tracks. Lets say you listen to it an average of once a day for 2 months. You have payed the band at this point ~$0.008 per track listen (1 stream equivalent). Now lets say you listen to it an average of once a month for the next 2 years. You are down to ~$0.005 cents per track.

 Now lets compound it. You know exactly what you did to be able to afford music when you were young. You burned a copy off for your friend. Meaning they didn't pay a dime for it. Or if they did it was your fee for doing the work. Or you would trade CDs with a buddy for a while, download it to your computer, you never had to pay for half, maybe more than half of the music you had in your collection. Meaning unlike the perceived penny's you may contribute to an artist via streaming, you contributed exactly nothing.

 The kicker is a band is getting a share of revenue for as long as they have their music on a streaming service. Meaning that $5 for a physical copy they only get once is $0.005 cents per stream they get until the day they die. Now since I have already established there are likely more people listening to an artist than would be without streaming services, and everyone streaming them is contributing to their income and not just you. It's safe to assume that a lot of artists, over the course of just a few years they will have made more from streaming than they ever would have without it.

Artists don't make most of their money from music sales.

 If you have been living under a rock you may have missed when TLC said they were flat broke after selling 10 million albums. Or when 30 Seconds to Mars said they were millions of dollars in debt also after selling tens of millions of records. It's well established that record labels, especially mega labels, basically keep all of the money from record sales. It's also thought they do the same with income from streaming. On top of that if a band is given an advance that is usually paid back with their portion of income from record sales or streams. Worse the same happens with the cost of material, printing, distribution of physical copies. Meaning it could take an artist years to pay off the dept they owed a record company before any of that record sales money ever hit their bank account. At the very least digital forms of distribution don't have this overhead. Meaning an artists cut shouldn't be withheld as long.

 It's been long established that artists have never made much money from their recordings. It's a sad truth and hard to swallow for those of us who appreciate and respect the musicians. But it's a reality. At least now the increased ease of exposure will get artists what they really need to make some money for their efforts.

 Blaming streaming, or the streaming services for how little an artist may make is ridiculous given all of this. Again. Easier access means more ears means more income. Even if it looks like it's little to nothing nothing at first glance.

Go to shows, buy merchandise!

 This is more of a PSA than a reason streaming is the future and will be better for artists.

 Touring always has been and always will be the most lucrative for artists. Generally a lot more of the price of a ticket goes to an artist than the cost of their CD. If you think buying a physical copy of an artists work is superior to streaming but don't go to shows you're just an asshole. If an artist you enjoy comes to your town, or anywhere within striking distance, buy a fucking ticket and go to the damn show. A lot of shows cost lest than the physical form of a record as well. imagine that. you spend less and the artist gets more.

 While you're at that show buy a fucking shirt. Especially in the case of independent (no label) or indie label artists most of that goes straight into their pockets.

 This is by far the best way to support your favorite artists. This is putting more of the money you are spending into their pocket. Plus you look sick as shit in your favorite artist merch.

You see now why streaming is good, and why it doesn't matter.

 My entire point in all of this is to say that streaming barely matters financially but can be greatly beneficial to up and coming artist gaining exposure. If you don't remember a time before streaming, or if you just forgot, hearing about a band that wasn't already successful was rare if you weren't part of a scene. Even then getting your hands on their work could be difficult. For indie bands getting any traction outside of their local scene came only with insane sacrifice and success stories were rare.

 Streaming services mean we can instantly go check out an artist. Good for fans and artists alike. It also means that when coupled with social media every musician has a fighting chance. It's better for the community as a whole and it's significantly better for the listener.

 I'm not the only one with this opinion. Many people far more qualified than myself are crunching the numbers and weighing the pros and cons. The sooner everyone admits streaming is the future, the sooner we can focus on how to make it better for everyone involved.