Spotify is making big money with music – many artists are receiving little compensation
August 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM An article by Frank Blenz

News made the media rounds that the Swedish music streaming provider Spotify began raising prices for its premium service at the beginning of August. It was also revealed that the head of the multi-billion dollar company is investing heavily in a Munich-based arms company that, among other things, manufactures kamikaze drones. The focus of both activities is clear: to make even more money, no matter how, and in such a way that the stupendous proceeds continue to be unfairly distributed.

Spotify is not a partner that values all artists and creators of the published works and ensures a fair share. Artists who fall into its clutches are the first link in the value chain, but the bitter reality is: With the exception of the stars, many artists are undervalued – they are the ones who are left with the smallest amounts. The chances of their music ever becoming known are also quite slim – at least not in this system. An interjection from Frank Blenz.

Musicians make music, others make money

The phrase "unprofitable art" springs to mind when it comes to something that is important to all of us (performers and audiences): making music, composing, and performing. Streaming is a way to gain publicity and attention, many musicians believe (out of necessity), because it seems trendy and indispensable, and times, listening habits, and user behavior have changed. In the past, success and fame were traditionally achieved via records, CDs, and radio airtime. But who buys silver these days? A glimmer of hope: vinyl records are back in fashion. And yet, when we look at the lives of the many artists who, in turn, enrich our lives as music listeners, and at their circumstances, value creation, and appreciation in a performance-driven, exploitation-oriented society, we are met with disillusionment.

For many artists, it's everyday life not to be able to make a living, or only to a limited extent, from music, from their (unprofitable?) art through streaming releases, even though they deserve it, even though it would be possible if only the distribution were handled fairly by the streaming services and other contractual partners of the artists.

Music via streaming generates enormous revenue worldwide and earns a great deal of money. But where does all this go when we hear that the musicians are getting less than is fair? Guitarist Christopher Annen of the German pop band AnnenMayKantereit listed who is opening their hands and really taking advantage of the large pot of revenue: It's the streaming services (which set the rules) like the European provider Spotify, which has structured its business model in such a way that in the end, (too) little reaches the musicians (with the exception of the stars). A lot of money thus remains with the service itself, followed by the music labels, distribution companies, and collecting societies, such as GEMA, among others.
(Source: DLF)

What's left for them, the musicians?

The many, many musicians who, despite the prevailing poor conditions and regulations, enthusiastically record music and then release it on Spotify, even though they know how difficult it is to generate revenue from it, are brave. Just do the math: To earn €500 on Spotify with a decent hit, a song that's quite popular with the audience, a different number of streams would be required depending on the average payout rate and the number of streams. On average, it would take between 166,667 and 250,000 streams to generate €500. The payout rate per stream on Spotify is between a paltry €0.002 and €0.003! Consequently, you have to click a lot to get close to €500.

Musicians who use streaming providers are in a dilemma, because Spotify and others set the pace. Listening to Spotify has become part of everyday life for many people – so if you want to be heard, you have to...
In many countries, Spotify is by far the most-used music streaming service – and for many people, it's a kind of synonym for listening to music. In Germany, according to a media usage study by Nielsen, Spotify is the market leader with 41 percent, followed by YouTube Music (31 percent) and Amazon Music (29 percent). Apple Music accounts for 14 percent of users. In other words: If you don't get noticed on Spotify, you might not get noticed at all. And even if many artists complain about the meager payment from Spotify, they are still dependent on its algorithms and playlists.
(Source: Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland)

Systematic injustice – a lot for the big players, little for the small ones, paid for by the users
NachDenkSeiten editor-in-chief Jens Berger described in his article how perfectly yet unfairly Spotify's system works, making itself, Spotify, and other big players, even bigger, while the "little ones" are left empty-handed:

If I, as a somewhat older man who pays full price for the service, listen to a song every now and then, I get maybe 100 hits per month. Let's exaggerate this and assume I listened to 100 songs by a small alternative band I'm a fan of last month. This band should actually get five euros (two-thirds of the 7.50 euros that end up in the pot from my subscription). But – purely hypothetically, of course – my son is preventing this.

He's young, needs every euro, and listens to Spotify as a non-paying customer with ad breaks. However, he also listens to a lot more music than I do. Let's say he listens to 50 songs a day, or 1,500 per month. And – again purely hypothetical[*] – he doesn't listen to music from a small alternative band like I do, but only to the hits of German rapper and megastar Capital Bra.

The pot still only contains my €7.50, but it's now distributed among 1,600 streams, of which my beloved little band, with 100 streams, only receives 6.25%. So, the alternative band – or rather their music publisher – ultimately receives only 47 cents, and rapper Capital Bra receives a whopping €7.03. And that's despite the fact that, as a paying customer, I neither like nor have even listened to his music.

This calculation may seem rather contrived, but it isn't. The rapper Capital Bra has a total of 1.4 billion (yes, that's not a typo) streams per year. Even with the ridiculous payout ratio of €0.003 per stream, that's a whopping €4.2 million. My small band, for example, gets around 100,000 streams. That's just €300. Not only is that not enough to live on—it's not even enough to produce a song in the first place.

I've identified problems, what now?

Around 3,000 musicians participated in a Germany-wide online survey on remuneration in the music streaming market. The German government, in this case the Minister of State for Culture, summarized what is unacceptable—for musicians:

- The musicians surveyed generate, on average, very low total annual income of less than €15,000 from their music-making activities, and half even generate less than €5,000.

- The average annual income from music streaming is less than €500 for the majority of respondents (72%), although this depends on the genre and type of contract.

- Only 21% of respondents earn their living primarily through music-making activities; instead, most finance themselves through additional sources of income.

- Music streaming accounts for 14% of the total income of the surveyed musicians, but remains the second-largest source of income after live performances at 34%.

- Almost 60% of respondents have been the most commercially successful since the 2020s.
Despite the growth of the music market, 38% of respondents reported declining total income over the past five years. At the same time, 35% of respondents experienced increasing total income.

- In the streaming market, revenue increased for 38% of respondents, while 25% reported declines.
An absolute majority of the surveyed musicians (over 74%) are dissatisfied with streaming income from copyright and related rights.

- 76% of respondents either cannot track their music streaming income at all or can only track it less effectively compared to other sources of income.

The majority prefer the user-centric billing model, reject the introduction of a minimum number of streams, and support lower remuneration for AI-generated and functional music.
(Source: Federal Minister of State for Culture)

How about this? An example from France

One can conclude that Spotify isn't a supporter of artists. It's about something else – profit. The distribution isn't right, and neither is the taxation. Large corporations like this streaming provider aren't taxed fairly, or they find ways to circumvent such inconveniences. The fact that, in France, a country essentially neoliberal, a tax on streaming services is setting a precedent to provide at least some support for music productions and tours is like the beginning of a countermeasure and should be imitated in Europe.

This (tax) money doesn't end up in the accounts of the aforementioned beneficiaries, but rather deservedly goes to the artists: About a year ago, France introduced a tax on music streaming services like Spotify to promote French music. Jean-Philippe Thiellay explained how successful the system is on Deutschlandfunk Kultur. He is the director of the Centre National de la Musique, which manages and distributes the money.

At the national level, hundreds of music productions and tours could have been supported. Many of these would not have happened without the support of streaming tax funds, especially in financially weak sectors, including classical music, French chanson, and jazz. The Centre National de la Musique was able to redistribute around €10 million in revenue from the streaming tax. And there could be even more: Taxation of music streaming services has also been announced for social media platforms such as TikTok and Meta, but the government has not yet enforced it. (Source: DLF)

But things remain as they were: creative in terms of returns, the creatives fall by the wayside.
The few French musicians will be somewhat pleased, their precarious situation continues, and things remain as they are in the big streaming monopoly. Daniel Ek, the Spotify boss, is living out his money-power-vanity dream of collecting more and more and more money, what with visions for the musicians...
Spotify: Shareholders rejoice, musicians suffer. Frankfurt am Main.

The price of Spotify shares is at an all-time high. The US-listed shares of the Swedish music streaming service climbed to $459 on Wednesday. Over the past year, the company has cut jobs, discontinued podcasts, reduced marketing spending, and raised subscription prices in the US to increase its profitability. Spotify's stated "vision" is to enable one million artists to make a living from their art. However, about two years ago, during a hearing before the US Congress of founder and CEO Daniel Ek, it emerged that musicians who aren't among the most listened to receive an average of no more than twelve US dollars per month. (Reuters/jW)
(Source: Junge Welt)

What can musicians do about this blatantly unfair situation?

Musicians, too, find themselves at the center of a society dominated by the relentless market, by money. Refusing to accept these market mechanisms could be feasible if bands didn't allow their music to be streamed, brought their work to the public on their own initiative, and, above all, performed live in front of audiences. Their own website, a wider presence on social media, and perhaps even nurturing and cultivating old-fashioned distribution channels and formats (the good old CD, by mail, their own booth near the stage at a concert), promoting and canvassing at smaller radio stations – all of these are essential to becoming known as a band or solo artist.

Becoming famous, the dream of many artists, isn't achieved on its own, but this colorful bouquet of self-chosen activities, far removed from dependence on the octopus known as a streaming provider, offers an alternative. Incidentally, earning €500 should be easily achievable (for starters). A side effect: Musicians no longer get annoyed by Spotify's vultures.

Source / German: www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=137840

 

I wonder what about Beatport, a track costs around 1.60 - 2.50 there, depending on the quality you choose, WAV or MP3, how much do you get for a sold track?

 

Bandcamp is the alternative to Spotify! I couldn't find the prices or payouts, but the AI knows:

Spoiler: Source: ChatGPT KI

Beatport Revenue Split (Typical)

• Artist (via label): Usually earns 10% to 25% of the track sale price.
  
  
• Label: Typically gets 50% to 60%.
  
  
• Distributor (e.g., Label Engine, Symphonic, DistroKid for Labels): Takes 15% to 20%.
  
  
• Beatport: Keeps around 30% to 35% of the sale price.

So, for a $2.00 track:

• Beatport keeps ≈ $0.60 - $0.70
  
  
• Distributor + Label take ≈ $1.00 - $1.30
  
  
• You (artist) end up with ≈ $0.20 - $0.50 (sometimes more if you're self-releasing or own the label)

If You Self-Release Through Your Own Label
If you're releasing under your own label and have a distributor:

• You could get up to 70% of the retail price after Beatport's cut.
  
  
• For a $2.00 track, you could earn ≈ $1.30 - $1.40, depending on distributor fees.

✅ Key Variables That Affect Earnings

1. Who owns the label?
   
   
2. What deal do you have with your label?
   
   
3. Distributor’s cut (flat fee or percentage)?
   
   
4. Currency exchange and taxes

 

Last edited: Aug 25, 2025 at 10:52 AM

Apparently there is no money to be made with music unless you are famous

 

same story like everywhere , ask farmers....
nothing will change cause people are to ignorant and not willing to put effort into a change.
no wonder when people being in constant struggle and dunno nothing about the system initiators and where it is heading .

also on other platforrms its like lottery to put your existence on the line with doing good music for living unless you doing the wwashed out asambly line cheap thing like everywhere in economy ,
selling quality is difficult these days ,good luck geting the next RME,Shimano,john deere or what ever .
on the other hand in the golden times of sports,music and real value building economy ,many at the top or even way below which did made it to a good life ,people really had to work their ass off to get there. stuff modern people not willing to .
problem is back then you could also have lucky life with low wage giving a fck on bla bla , but today freedom,individuality is getting less and on top humans do devalue others cause they dont are able to effort newest sneaker,car this and that .sure this was always the case but today ....

forgive me my rant but if you young , listen : no matter how many money you make right now with music ,get a good education and a crisis-proof job which gives you halfways joy at least or you will wake up in a world you dont wanna be in your later years and you will be faster there as you think , a lot .

 

Just a few thoughts: Turn off your PC, log off the internet for two days, turn off the TV for two days, and think hard about it.
Then gather all the facts about making money from music. Why and how, wherefore and what for?

The answer could be something like this:

I record my music on a portable recorder and amplify it with a portable amplifier. I paint myself like a clown and go to the pedestrian zone or train station, etc., and play my music. I have 100 self-burned CD-ROMs with my music and internet address, and a T-shirt or sweatshirt printed with "CD 10 EUR," "5," or "10 $" (your country's currency).It's best to do this over four Saturdays for seven hours.

Or you can organize a party with several people in your city, analogue to the old days, by printing little flyers and handing them out. There she sells her CD ROMs...!

 

First I just wanna say fuck Spotify and everything involving Dan Ek. The writing has been on the wall in big and bold letters for decades now. We did this to ourselves by allowing this parasite into our world. Unless you are pulling 1million streams every song you release, you arent making any money, in fact it is the opposite, you are working at a loss, spending your own money to make Spotify owners money. The entire company is a scam. The only solution is to stop uploading your music and stop using the streaming platform full stop. Either do something about it or stop complaining about what you did to yourself!

Generally speaking, immediately deduct 50% off the top for the store, then 50% for the label, 20% for the distributor, taxation (sometimes double, if international), 5% processing fees, contributor splits. In the end, the original artist/copyright owner might expect roughly 15% of a sale price, usually paid out quarterly or bi-annual (ie the last in the chain to be paid the least). Then you have to deal with all these middlemen not reporting royalties or doing so inaccurately. The PRO's are no better, in fact, worse in many instances.

The only solution is to cut out all the middleman bullshit, approach it as a business, diy a-z everything from top to bottom and take back full control over your creations, your fans and your money. Either do something about it or stop complaining about what you did to yourself!

Byeeeeeeee!

 

Spotify is pushing a huge pile of debt (1.940 millions of $$ to be exact) in front of it and made a "profit" for the first time in the 2024 fiscal year. Now many millions of dollars have to be paid back to those who have risked many, many millions over many years to get the thing up and running.

In the end, it's still the rights holders/labels who make the most money from a song. Spotify is still a thorn in their side. If it were up to the rights holders/labels, music would still be sold on CD only.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/spotify/total-debt/

https://www.welt.de/kultur/medien/a...tify-und-Co-Wo-landet-das-Streaming-Geld.html

 

Last edited: Aug 25, 2025 at 12:40 PM

Oh gawd, this old nugget. Well, this is what happens when the owner is regularly withdrawing billions of dollars in cash payments for himself to fund his yacht mansion caviar sportscar lifestyle. Not to mention their major city high-street multimillion dollar offices around the world and average employee salaries of $150,000-$300,000 per year. Suggesting they operate at a loss and it is anything short of a global scam is

 

There is in clever ways, but you need a "full-stack" mindset. There are a lot of broke music celebrities, so fame is not a good standard of financial success in the modern age of digital streaming wages. They have to make physical appearances to earn anything meaningful.

 

And now some artists are leaving due to one of Spotify's CEOs investing in weapons.

So, from my side, fuck Spotify.

PS: got 4 songs there, but because was a side project with another guy. Never made a dollar. Hope they take me off of their celebrities catalogue.