Ive just downloaded a track from google play. It the first time ive done this . Will the artist get anymore if i liston to it via the streaming method or will it make no difference as they already have the benifit of the download.

Just want to do the best thing to help the artists as they are new and trying to make a name for themselves.

Thanks

Artists end up getting paid very very little in terms of royalities via streaming. This is what the newly re-established streaming service, Tidal is trying to change, by acknowledging the importance of artists getting paid fairly for their work.

I would probably best stick to downloading for the time being.

I wouldn't worry about the artist. They have millions. As long as it is legal, you have nothing to worry about. Enjoy your music.

Out of interest, what is the name of the artist? You never know, there might be others on DS who decide to check out their music and buy their single too.

Word of mouth does wonders. Look at James Blunt.

I'm pretty sure the new artist the OP talks about doesn't have millions.

Really? All music artists are worth millions?

Your big label artists, maybe...

Very, very, few artists make much money these days, those who have "millions" are the tiny minority of those making music and even then most of them make their real money outside of music.

Yes, essentially true. There are a number of modern pop stars who have made >$200m in a relatively short time like Bieber, Gaga, Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Katie Perry,....but the vast majority of artists are nowhere near as wealthy.

It's the nature of pop music (and Capitalism, in general) to only allow a small number of artists to have a great share of the wealth. I suspect this has always been the case. There are of course many other ways of making money in pop music, through management, promotion, production, engineering and writing music for others.

All of this of course is the reason Taylor Swift took that huge stand against Apple music. It wouldn't have affected her much, but for every Taylor Swift there are a thousand struggling musicians.

That was a publicity stunt between her and Apple. It came exactly a week before Apple music launched. No way is that a coincidence.

Any evidence of that? Shall I hold my breath?

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to work it out. Taylor has been moaning for months about the amount Spotify has paid her so she didn't put her latest album on it. Apple Music pays less per stream that Spotify yet she puts it on there?

I suspect Apple gave her a nice bit of money for her to do her faux rant. It ended up making both parties look good in the end.

Also, it was just a week before launch. Even if you don't agree with the above, you have to admit the timing was more than a coincidence.

You seem to have a problem with the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

You seem to be rather gullible believing famous peoples "press releases".

No, you're the gullible one believing something is true without any evidence whatsoever.

Give me a reason why she'd put her album on Apple Music but not Spotify?

I don't know. Believe it or not I'm not Taylor Swift.

You don't believe the timing was suspicious? And you don't think it's odd that she hasn't put her album on Spotify but on Apple music when it pays less per stream than Spotify?

Unusual maybe. Evidence of some huge conspiracy? Not a chance.

Since her complaint was not about the royalty rate but about non-payment of royalties during the three-month trial period, no. It's common sense that artists stand to get more plays during the trial period because many people will sign up for free trials with all the streaming services and then cancel. So getting artists paid during the three-month trial was an important victory.