​

Whatever your stance, it is undeniable that there’s a gaping financial wound in the music industry. On average, 80% of a musician’s income comes from live performance in the UK. With no scheme to protect them fairly, musicians need to rely on other forms of revenue to earn their keep and avoid changing professions. It is for this reason that much attention has been directed towards streaming as a form of revenue which has the potential to help artists in these times of hardship. 

Streaming contributed £1.1 billion to the UK economy in 2019; a figure which is expected to increase as a result of increased consumption during the pandemic. However, the revenue streams are heavily orientated towards larger artists. Spotify explains how 90% of their streams come from 43,000 artists. The label takes a cut - typically 52% for majors - which itself is a big financial step down from the days when labels controlled music consumption through physical sales as the dominating gatekeepers in the game. 

Brace yourselves for some #quickmaths. 

Spotify’s latest figures state that they have over 3 million artists. If we deduct Spotify’s 43,000 highest earning artists from this, that leaves a whopping 2,957,000 artists to share the remaining 10% of Spotify’s streams - and since royalties are based on streams, this equates to only 10% of streaming revenue. These remaining artists earn on average £9.25 per month, which isn’t even enough to cover the cost of a standard monthly subscription to Spotify premium! This is no new development, of course, but the pandemic has made the issue more pressing than ever because of the need to support smaller artists in the midst of cancelled shows and job schemes which don’t support them adequately. The issue is now so hot that the government will hold an inquiry to investigate how major DSPs (Digital Service Providers) like Spotify and Apple Music should change their models to offer smaller artists more support. 

It could be argued that the government is attempting to use DSPs as scapegoats by urging them to support small artists in the knowledge that their own job support schemes do not. A potential solution which, in my opinion, is not discussed enough is that we - the streaming consumers - should pay more. For a tenner a month (or half of that with various discounts) we get access to an almost unlimited supply of music. Compare that to the vinyl market where for the same cost per year you could get your hands on only 5 or 6 albums! If streaming consumers paid a bit more per month, and DSPs changed their models to support smaller artists, we could help a great deal of artists survive during the pandemic. Major DSPs have been very influential for more than a decade. Most consumers, including myself, are so hooked by their personal playlists that enough people would still pay a larger subscription fee for the sake of continuity, making it a financially viable option for DSPs.

Finding a solution to the UK’s live music crisis during the pandemic is far from easy, and everyone will have their own beliefs about how to move forward. What is important, though, is an ethic of co-operation between all those invested in it, including labels, DSPs, the government and consumers. The music industry is an ecosystem and ultimately everyone needs to work together to help carry the live sector and its members through the economic crisis. After all, the UK music industry brought in £5.2bn p/a prior to the pandemic. It is the second largest in the world and bears huge cultural significance for the country. Live music is at the centre of it all, offering a completely unique and powerful connection with music whilst also contributing over £1 billion to the UK economy and £4.5 billion through musical tourism. It is the beating heart of the music industry, both emotionally and financially, and we must all work together to save it at all costs.