I can't help but feel that all of these complaints about low pay etc are just a symptom of the new reality. I don't really understand what people are expecting here. Distribution costs are minimal, audience is (kind-of) locked-in, discovery is relatively simple. The risk is almost entirely on Spotify's end of things, rather than the artists. Yes, without the artists, Spotify doesn't have a business - but without digital streaming services like Spotify, users could easily end up under an iTunes monopoly which probably wouldn't be good for anybody (although I believe - may be wrong, but please correct me - that iTunes does give artists a better deal currently?). The world is going digital, and people want to stream stuff. That's just a fact. Sure, many people will always buy CDs and LPs, but there being 'no money' in recording music is hardly a new phenomenon - people have complained about it for years before digital streaming was even a thing.

I really do have sympathy that there isn't much money in recorded music, but I do struggle to find a justification for why artists seem to think Spotify should be paying them more other than the fact that they just 'want' it and need to make a living. I understand that completely - and honestly I'd probably pay a higher price for Spotify if they demanded it and the extra money went to artists.

I think the problem is this: the music industry in general has exploited artists for years. It is not a business that works in the artist's favour, unless those artists are extremely popular (and even then, labels can seriously fuck artists over if they want to). Outside of the superstars, musicians may (not always, but often) fare better when they organise their own affairs - live performances, commissions for work, appearances, media, collaborations etc. They probably won't get super-rich doing this, but it could be a decent income for the right artists. What we have instead is a situation where artists create music for a (more or less) one time cost (recording, mastering, equipment, studio time etc) and then hope to make the money back through physical sales, royalties, and performances. The problem, I feel, is that the initial costs of production are still high, but the distribution costs are now incredibly low, which means end-consumers are reluctant to pay higher prices. I don't see any way around this other than altering the nature of the business itself. If production is always going to be a costly affair in the music world, then income from royalties through services like Spotify are destined to be considered low.

I honestly think there's no real hope for any significant increase in income through digital services. Why should there be? There's no technical reason to increase fees - distribution gets cheaper all the time. The only way to increase royalty payments generally is to either cut into profits, or pass the increase on to the customer - neither of which are sensible business decisions unless Spotify's hand is forced.

We don't really have a profitable relationship with music - the value we attach to a single track on iTunes or Spotify doesn't reflect at all the costs to the artist - but unless artists can convince consumers to start paying a lot more, I just don't think they'll see significant returns from recorded music any time in the forseeable future. It's just not an industry that pays particularly well. Production costs are high, distribution costs are low. Unless we alter the way music is produced, performed, and experienced, people won't feel like paying more gives them any extra value. It's an uphill battle.

I wish things were better for artists, but I just don't see a way out of this is that doesn't involve massively increasing price at the point of consumption.