5 ms·

Music streaming payouts comparison

71 points by bartoszhernas 5y ago

chovybizzass 5y ago
Tidal is good but way way WAY too expensive.
newobj 5y ago
that much? [as in: i would have expected less. NOT as in: they deserve less]
- kleiba 5y ago
  I think it's well known that artists are not the ones in the music business who profit the most unless they're among the top few. However, it is informative to see a concrete number. Think of all these lesser known artists and bands: if your song gets 100,000 spins (that's a high number for a lot of them), that just made you 400 bucks. Probably minus taxes. Divided by the number of band members, I suppose.
minxomat 5y ago
Subscriber Share[1] is the solution. Envato has done it, SoundCloud is doing it. It will never arrive for large music streaming platforms. It's not the platforms' fault. It's the rights holders'. [1] https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-envato-elements-c3aac873657c https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-enva...
- PennRobotics 5y ago
  To summarize that Medium link: * Heavy users get too much of a vote. In effect, they decide where money from less active subscribers goes, even if everyone pays the same. * Specialized or niche content struggles to earn real money. Everyone goes for the big hit. * It is vulnerable to click fraud. You can control more money than you paid, just by downloading lots. What they suggest, paraphrased: If you stream 10 items, each item earns 1/10th of your total usage e.g. each gets $1. Taken to an extreme, if you only stream 1 song, then that artist gets the full $10. ----- How then, does this model seek to pay artists based on users who aren't paying?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Identify session of listening, pool all add income from that session. Distribute it on based of shared listening time. Doesn't seem too complicated. Or you could map adds to adjancent tracks.
88840-8855 5y ago
How about production cost for music? I have no figures for that but I can imagine that producing (most) music has become cheaper. Further, I would put the hypothesis into the room that the revenue mix has also shifted. From selling music to selling tickets, merch, etc. Any ideas on those two things?
- Trombone12 5y ago
  I think the real savings are on the distribution side, but at the same time what actually counts as a "sale" is pretty blurry on streaming services. Anyway, the real question is how the net income compares to living expenses, and how that had developed over time.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Production costs vary enormously. For example if you're Marc Rebillet you improv everything, Marc has a loop sampler, a couple of laptops, a keyboard synth, headphones and and a microphone, he makes noises, or sings, and the loop sampler creates rhythm because that's how loops work - so he's "just" on the fly coming up with the words and the tune. Maybe Marc spends 10 minutes going from silence to a backing track and then puts together a 5 minute song about, I dunno, how amazing squirrels are, "Tree Rat God Freak". Seems to me that's 15 minutes and if a thousand people stream it and Marc gets paid $4 for that it's a profitable use of his 15 minutes. [ Of course because watching this happen live is fascinating people actually pay to watch Marc on Twitch, so he gets more than $4 before the song is even finished ] On the other hand, maybe you spend six months composing an orchestral piece, you need a full orchestra to perform it, that takes them several hours to rehearse and get it down, and then a million streams of that doesn't really pay everybody for their time.
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
That sees crazy high? I assume this is one of those things where a massive amount of subscribers barely stream anything and that's how they can justify such a large payout?
- azinman2 5y ago
  How is this so large? You need millions of listens a month to have any kind of basic income that may match a low end HN reader. Even more streams if you have anything but yourself involved in your music (label, producers, other talent, etc).
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    Because it is high compared to what people make on places like YouTube. The attention economy doesn't pay much and generally people aren't willing to pay either.
stacker8888 5y ago
Wow, YouTube is abysmal! What do we expect from a platform forged by piracy?
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Few people pay for YouTube premium, many run adblock and even then ads don't exactly pay very well for a lot of niches. It makes sense I think. The numbers are roughly in line with what other types of videos make on YouTube.
kleiba 5y ago
Isn't the actual music just an ad for the real product, tours and merchandise?
- tiborsaas 5y ago
  For those who don't tour or sell stuff this is peanuts. Not all musicians want to perform live, some can't even due to the nature of the music... or COVID.
  - thatswrong0 5y ago
    But this is just supply and demand in action - at any given moment there is a ton of high quality music to listen to in pretty much any style you can think of at your finger tips. Listening to a live performance, on the other hand, is far more rare than an individual stream, and that scarcity results in actual value. Same with merch. I'm saying this as a musician.. why should I feel entitled to $X per stream when there is so much good music out there to stream? Just because I put a lot of effort into some thing doesn't mean I'm entitled to a living wage from it. There are way, way too many people who do something extremely similar to feel entitled to that.
- kchr 5y ago
  Yeah, 20 years ago... That was before we got this invention called the Internet, which can be used to promote your music and let others find it instead of having to rely on tours and merch ;-)
  - kleiba 5y ago
    I'm thinking the other way around, actually: tours and merch are not there to promote the music, but the music is to promote the tour and merch.
azinman2 5y ago
Doesn’t the article seem to contradict itself in YouTube paying the most? I’d love to see a comparison with what artists we’re getting paid from iTunes before this streaming model.
czechdeveloper 5y ago
Then they honestly loose money with me. I listen probably whole work day (in reality more). That is 8 hours, cca 4 minutes per song = 120 songs a day. That means they pay out about 0.5 USD per day for me. Let's say not all days, but just 25 days a month (i listen weekends too) would mean 12.5 USD paid out. I pay 9.99 EUR for family (11.8 USD). There are other people on my account.
- float4 5y ago
  Doesn't work that way. The money you pay that is reserved for artists is thrown onto a big pile, and then the money is distributed to the artists proportionally to how many plays they generated.
- srg0 5y ago
  I don't think it works like this: a fixed rate times the number of streams. It is probably the other way round. They get _some_ revenue per user per month, which can be ads or a premium fee (which again can be different, because there are student, dual and family subscriptions, as well as one time promotions). Then they get their cut. The rest is divided between thousands of copyright holders according to some magic formula. Spotify still gets its 30%. As long as their operating cost to serve you is less than 3.33 EUR, they are good. If you listen 3000 songs and pay 10 EUR, I suppose that will pay out 7/3000=0.002 EUR per song. 5 times the average. If I pay 16 EUR for a family subscription, and we listen 100 tracks, then I suppose our streams will pay out 16*0.7/100 = 0.112 EUR per track. That's crazy good (at least I hope that the artists I listen to get that much from my streams when I don't listen much). My friend listens to Spotify Free. Let's say the ad revenue is 1 EUR per month. 0.30 is the cut. 0.70 goes to the artists. If she listens to 160 tracks, it will be close to the average Spotify pay out. Not much. Better than nothing.
jmcgough 5y ago
I thought Spotify shifted away from paying per-stream after Sleepify? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify
pedrocr 5y ago
>Of all the money Spotify receives, 70 percent goes to the right holders. So Spotify only takes a 30% cut, that seems reasonable. Could be lower with more competition but it seems they have a lead over other services. >How does that work? All the money is split across all streams. But the system also concerns the share of one artist within all those streams. So let's say Drake is responsible for five percent of all streams, then five percent of all money has to go to Drake. And it seems like it's proportional to the usage. >Is it unfair? >Of course, that's okay if you enjoy listening to Drake. But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. That's why some artists think that you should only pay for the artists you actually stream. And not that everything is lumped together and then distributed. And then this seems to try and contradict that? What's unfair here? Are they giving a bigger share to artists that are played across more users and not more streams?
- namdnay 5y ago
  > But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. Do they realise that someone who only listens to Drake is also going to be sending money to your artist? I agree with you, their complaint really doesn't make sense.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    It makes sense, it's about what's not written: paying users pay for everyone's listening habits, also the non-paying ones.
    - vintermann 5y ago
      Not true. The free tier has its own pool, thankfully, so millions of listens on free accounts won't affect what paid listeners' payments go to.
      - kzrdude 5y ago
        Not true anymore? So what pays for the free listeners' plays?
zpeti 5y ago
Isn't is total subscription revenue divided by number of songs played? How is that coming to $0.004 per stream spotifies fault? What are they supposed to do?
- partido3619463 5y ago
  Charge more. Take a smaller cut.
  - circlefavshape 5y ago
    If they took no cut at all that'd push the per-stream amount to 0.0057. Still pretty tiny.
slac 5y ago
In most cases they pay the record labels and not the artists, correct?
tiagod 5y ago
>The most generous streaming platform is Napster. The online music store pays the artist $1 for every 53 streams, followed by Tidal >[...] >If you are a listener and it's vital for you to support artists, you can start using TIDAL instead of another music streaming platform Why TIDAL and not Napster? Weird plug
- Digit-Al 5y ago
  I was thinking exactly the same thing. Seems bizarre that they recommend the second most generous instead of the most generous.
- Bombthecat 5y ago
  I tried Tidal, but man, they don't have soooo many songs i would like to listen to..
- ascar 5y ago
  They also say YouTube pays the most after clearly showing it pays the worst. Seems to be bad writing. The article just has too many blatant logical flaws in it to be considered trustworthy.
- Tobu 5y ago
  They seem to conflate YouTube and YouTube music, as well.
anoncow 5y ago
How much does Spotify make per stream on an average?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tibbydudeza 5y ago
During heydays of CD sales in 2000's the artist/band used get $7.68 per CD. Merch and concerts has always been the money maker but obviously the last 2 years put paid to that.
lmilcin 5y ago
How ironic that Napster, of all, is paying highest rate?
- vintermann 5y ago
  They're paying the same rate as everyone else. Their users just listen to fewer tracks on average. Probably because they forgot they were subscribed to the service.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
rapht 5y ago
The source of those stats is not clear enough in my opinion. Is the "per-stream" measure a result to try and have a comparable basis between the various actors, or is it really the only underlying factor in the calculation (beside the country which is mentionned as another factor)? My guess would be that services would pay per minute-stream, not per stream. Otherwise, artists that tend to have longer form would not be willing to participate (I'm a big fan of Keith Jarrett, for instance, whose solo concerts mostly consist of tracks of around 40 minutes). You could also imagine hybrid models with bounds that de-linearize certain factors. Looking at a very aggregate average is a recipe for erroneous conclusions...
- vintermann 5y ago
  Payment is indeed per stream, not per minute (last time I checked). Tracks below 30 seconds make no money for the artist, so the optimal length for a track is a little more than that. Yes, Keith Jarrett (and many others) get screwed by this system.
  - srg0 5y ago
    Payout proportional to the track count favors short tracks. The payout proportional to the air time favors longer tracks. As long as payouts are calculated on an account per account basis, any approach is fair. A TOOL fan will probably listen 5 times fewer tracks than a Ramones fan, but it is OK because every their stream is worth 5 times as much. Though if they pool track counts (or minutes played) across multiple accounts, then different listening patterns of different accounts will always skew payouts one way or the other. And it is always unfair.
fundatus 5y ago
The most interesting takeaway for me from this article is that Apple Music doesn't actually pay 1ct per stream unlike what is often suggested. Also that it is closer to Spotify than it is to Napster or Tidal when it comes to payouts per stream.
- vintermann 5y ago
  All those numbers are useless. The streaming companies have essentially the same deals with the record companies. It's just an artefact of how streaming payout works. The services which pay out most per stream, are just those which have a lot of paying users who don't listen to very much music. The less music they listen to, the more owners get paid per stream.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
A well-done advertorial of their (terribly expensive) Smart Links product.
BlasDeLezo 5y ago
Jack Stratton's Vulfpeck 2018 “To understand their artist payout, you need a new currency. I call it the ‘The Pity.’ There are a hundred pennies in a dollar and a hundred pitties in a penny. On a given play the artist will make about 60 pitties and that rate seems to be dropping” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1sTH7bUQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1sTH7bUQ4
Shadonototro 5y ago
$400k for only just 100M streams? that's a lot of money only people with $AAPL in their portfolio can be against this Playing your music in the metro doesn't automatically give you money, a stream shouldn't automatically give you money Music is art, you offer your art, and it's up to the person to choose to support you If you can't get your art to people, you can't expect people to support you Stream != engagement
- Shadonototro 5y ago
  i notice a trend.. ;) https://i.imgur.com/Rvq8AH4.png https://i.imgur.com/Rvq8AH4.png

71 points by bartoszhernas 5y ago

chovybizzass 5y ago

Tidal is good but way way WAY too expensive.

newobj 5y ago

that much? [as in: i would have expected less. NOT as in: they deserve less]

kleiba 5y ago
I think it's well known that artists are not the ones in the music business who profit the most unless they're among the top few. However, it is informative to see a concrete number. Think of all these lesser known artists and bands: if your song gets 100,000 spins (that's a high number for a lot of them), that just made you 400 bucks. Probably minus taxes. Divided by the number of band members, I suppose.

minxomat 5y ago

Subscriber Share[1] is the solution. Envato has done it, SoundCloud is doing it. It will never arrive for large music streaming platforms. It's not the platforms' fault. It's the rights holders'. [1] https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-envato-elements-c3aac873657c https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-enva...

PennRobotics 5y ago
To summarize that Medium link: * Heavy users get too much of a vote. In effect, they decide where money from less active subscribers goes, even if everyone pays the same. * Specialized or niche content struggles to earn real money. Everyone goes for the big hit. * It is vulnerable to click fraud. You can control more money than you paid, just by downloading lots. What they suggest, paraphrased: If you stream 10 items, each item earns 1/10th of your total usage e.g. each gets $1. Taken to an extreme, if you only stream 1 song, then that artist gets the full $10. ----- How then, does this model seek to pay artists based on users who aren't paying?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Identify session of listening, pool all add income from that session. Distribute it on based of shared listening time. Doesn't seem too complicated. Or you could map adds to adjancent tracks.

88840-8855 5y ago

How about production cost for music? I have no figures for that but I can imagine that producing (most) music has become cheaper. Further, I would put the hypothesis into the room that the revenue mix has also shifted. From selling music to selling tickets, merch, etc. Any ideas on those two things?

Trombone12 5y ago
I think the real savings are on the distribution side, but at the same time what actually counts as a "sale" is pretty blurry on streaming services. Anyway, the real question is how the net income compares to living expenses, and how that had developed over time.
tialaramex 5y ago
Production costs vary enormously. For example if you're Marc Rebillet you improv everything, Marc has a loop sampler, a couple of laptops, a keyboard synth, headphones and and a microphone, he makes noises, or sings, and the loop sampler creates rhythm because that's how loops work - so he's "just" on the fly coming up with the words and the tune. Maybe Marc spends 10 minutes going from silence to a backing track and then puts together a 5 minute song about, I dunno, how amazing squirrels are, "Tree Rat God Freak". Seems to me that's 15 minutes and if a thousand people stream it and Marc gets paid $4 for that it's a profitable use of his 15 minutes. [ Of course because watching this happen live is fascinating people actually pay to watch Marc on Twitch, so he gets more than $4 before the song is even finished ] On the other hand, maybe you spend six months composing an orchestral piece, you need a full orchestra to perform it, that takes them several hours to rehearse and get it down, and then a million streams of that doesn't really pay everybody for their time.

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

That sees crazy high? I assume this is one of those things where a massive amount of subscribers barely stream anything and that's how they can justify such a large payout?

azinman2 5y ago
How is this so large? You need millions of listens a month to have any kind of basic income that may match a low end HN reader. Even more streams if you have anything but yourself involved in your music (label, producers, other talent, etc).
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Because it is high compared to what people make on places like YouTube. The attention economy doesn't pay much and generally people aren't willing to pay either.

stacker8888 5y ago

Wow, YouTube is abysmal! What do we expect from a platform forged by piracy?

Aerroon 5y ago
Few people pay for YouTube premium, many run adblock and even then ads don't exactly pay very well for a lot of niches. It makes sense I think. The numbers are roughly in line with what other types of videos make on YouTube.

kleiba 5y ago

Isn't the actual music just an ad for the real product, tours and merchandise?

tiborsaas 5y ago
For those who don't tour or sell stuff this is peanuts. Not all musicians want to perform live, some can't even due to the nature of the music... or COVID.
- thatswrong0 5y ago
  But this is just supply and demand in action - at any given moment there is a ton of high quality music to listen to in pretty much any style you can think of at your finger tips. Listening to a live performance, on the other hand, is far more rare than an individual stream, and that scarcity results in actual value. Same with merch. I'm saying this as a musician.. why should I feel entitled to $X per stream when there is so much good music out there to stream? Just because I put a lot of effort into some thing doesn't mean I'm entitled to a living wage from it. There are way, way too many people who do something extremely similar to feel entitled to that.
kchr 5y ago
Yeah, 20 years ago... That was before we got this invention called the Internet, which can be used to promote your music and let others find it instead of having to rely on tours and merch ;-)
- kleiba 5y ago
  I'm thinking the other way around, actually: tours and merch are not there to promote the music, but the music is to promote the tour and merch.

azinman2 5y ago

Doesn’t the article seem to contradict itself in YouTube paying the most? I’d love to see a comparison with what artists we’re getting paid from iTunes before this streaming model.

czechdeveloper 5y ago

Then they honestly loose money with me. I listen probably whole work day (in reality more). That is 8 hours, cca 4 minutes per song = 120 songs a day. That means they pay out about 0.5 USD per day for me. Let's say not all days, but just 25 days a month (i listen weekends too) would mean 12.5 USD paid out. I pay 9.99 EUR for family (11.8 USD). There are other people on my account.

float4 5y ago
Doesn't work that way. The money you pay that is reserved for artists is thrown onto a big pile, and then the money is distributed to the artists proportionally to how many plays they generated.
srg0 5y ago
I don't think it works like this: a fixed rate times the number of streams. It is probably the other way round. They get _some_ revenue per user per month, which can be ads or a premium fee (which again can be different, because there are student, dual and family subscriptions, as well as one time promotions). Then they get their cut. The rest is divided between thousands of copyright holders according to some magic formula. Spotify still gets its 30%. As long as their operating cost to serve you is less than 3.33 EUR, they are good. If you listen 3000 songs and pay 10 EUR, I suppose that will pay out 7/3000=0.002 EUR per song. 5 times the average. If I pay 16 EUR for a family subscription, and we listen 100 tracks, then I suppose our streams will pay out 16*0.7/100 = 0.112 EUR per track. That's crazy good (at least I hope that the artists I listen to get that much from my streams when I don't listen much). My friend listens to Spotify Free. Let's say the ad revenue is 1 EUR per month. 0.30 is the cut. 0.70 goes to the artists. If she listens to 160 tracks, it will be close to the average Spotify pay out. Not much. Better than nothing.

jmcgough 5y ago

I thought Spotify shifted away from paying per-stream after Sleepify? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify

pedrocr 5y ago

>Of all the money Spotify receives, 70 percent goes to the right holders. So Spotify only takes a 30% cut, that seems reasonable. Could be lower with more competition but it seems they have a lead over other services. >How does that work? All the money is split across all streams. But the system also concerns the share of one artist within all those streams. So let's say Drake is responsible for five percent of all streams, then five percent of all money has to go to Drake. And it seems like it's proportional to the usage. >Is it unfair? >Of course, that's okay if you enjoy listening to Drake. But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. That's why some artists think that you should only pay for the artists you actually stream. And not that everything is lumped together and then distributed. And then this seems to try and contradict that? What's unfair here? Are they giving a bigger share to artists that are played across more users and not more streams?

namdnay 5y ago
> But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. Do they realise that someone who only listens to Drake is also going to be sending money to your artist? I agree with you, their complaint really doesn't make sense.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  It makes sense, it's about what's not written: paying users pay for everyone's listening habits, also the non-paying ones.
  - vintermann 5y ago
    Not true. The free tier has its own pool, thankfully, so millions of listens on free accounts won't affect what paid listeners' payments go to.
    - kzrdude 5y ago
      Not true anymore? So what pays for the free listeners' plays?

zpeti 5y ago

Isn't is total subscription revenue divided by number of songs played? How is that coming to $0.004 per stream spotifies fault? What are they supposed to do?

partido3619463 5y ago
Charge more. Take a smaller cut.
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  If they took no cut at all that'd push the per-stream amount to 0.0057. Still pretty tiny.

slac 5y ago

In most cases they pay the record labels and not the artists, correct?

tiagod 5y ago

>The most generous streaming platform is Napster. The online music store pays the artist $1 for every 53 streams, followed by Tidal >[...] >If you are a listener and it's vital for you to support artists, you can start using TIDAL instead of another music streaming platform Why TIDAL and not Napster? Weird plug

Digit-Al 5y ago
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Seems bizarre that they recommend the second most generous instead of the most generous.
Bombthecat 5y ago
I tried Tidal, but man, they don't have soooo many songs i would like to listen to..
ascar 5y ago
They also say YouTube pays the most after clearly showing it pays the worst. Seems to be bad writing. The article just has too many blatant logical flaws in it to be considered trustworthy.
Tobu 5y ago
They seem to conflate YouTube and YouTube music, as well.

anoncow 5y ago

How much does Spotify make per stream on an average?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tibbydudeza 5y ago

During heydays of CD sales in 2000's the artist/band used get $7.68 per CD. Merch and concerts has always been the money maker but obviously the last 2 years put paid to that.

lmilcin 5y ago

How ironic that Napster, of all, is paying highest rate?

vintermann 5y ago
They're paying the same rate as everyone else. Their users just listen to fewer tracks on average. Probably because they forgot they were subscribed to the service.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

rapht 5y ago

The source of those stats is not clear enough in my opinion. Is the "per-stream" measure a result to try and have a comparable basis between the various actors, or is it really the only underlying factor in the calculation (beside the country which is mentionned as another factor)? My guess would be that services would pay per minute-stream, not per stream. Otherwise, artists that tend to have longer form would not be willing to participate (I'm a big fan of Keith Jarrett, for instance, whose solo concerts mostly consist of tracks of around 40 minutes). You could also imagine hybrid models with bounds that de-linearize certain factors. Looking at a very aggregate average is a recipe for erroneous conclusions...

vintermann 5y ago
Payment is indeed per stream, not per minute (last time I checked). Tracks below 30 seconds make no money for the artist, so the optimal length for a track is a little more than that. Yes, Keith Jarrett (and many others) get screwed by this system.
- srg0 5y ago
  Payout proportional to the track count favors short tracks. The payout proportional to the air time favors longer tracks. As long as payouts are calculated on an account per account basis, any approach is fair. A TOOL fan will probably listen 5 times fewer tracks than a Ramones fan, but it is OK because every their stream is worth 5 times as much. Though if they pool track counts (or minutes played) across multiple accounts, then different listening patterns of different accounts will always skew payouts one way or the other. And it is always unfair.

fundatus 5y ago

The most interesting takeaway for me from this article is that Apple Music doesn't actually pay 1ct per stream unlike what is often suggested. Also that it is closer to Spotify than it is to Napster or Tidal when it comes to payouts per stream.

vintermann 5y ago
All those numbers are useless. The streaming companies have essentially the same deals with the record companies. It's just an artefact of how streaming payout works. The services which pay out most per stream, are just those which have a lot of paying users who don't listen to very much music. The less music they listen to, the more owners get paid per stream.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

A well-done advertorial of their (terribly expensive) Smart Links product.

BlasDeLezo 5y ago

Jack Stratton's Vulfpeck 2018 “To understand their artist payout, you need a new currency. I call it the ‘The Pity.’ There are a hundred pennies in a dollar and a hundred pitties in a penny. On a given play the artist will make about 60 pitties and that rate seems to be dropping” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1sTH7bUQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1sTH7bUQ4

Shadonototro 5y ago

$400k for only just 100M streams? that's a lot of money only people with $AAPL in their portfolio can be against this Playing your music in the metro doesn't automatically give you money, a stream shouldn't automatically give you money Music is art, you offer your art, and it's up to the person to choose to support you If you can't get your art to people, you can't expect people to support you Stream != engagement

Shadonototro 5y ago
i notice a trend.. ;) https://i.imgur.com/Rvq8AH4.png https://i.imgur.com/Rvq8AH4.png