You’re not a star and you’re never going to be one.

Now that felt good, didn’t it?

The twentieth century was all about technology putting a few artists in front of everybody. First and foremost, only a few could make and distribute recordings, never mind get on the radio. But deep pocketed labels scoured for talent and the main job was to get the record on the radio. What the act looked like, their backstory, were considerations, but very minor, everything came down to the record itself. And since recording was expensive and primitive, it was necessary to play the song all at once and get it right. In other words, talented people had to be involved, which is why studio cats were hired, you couldn’t risk letting the band itself record.

In the late sixties and seventies, suddenly music drove the culture, technology allowed multiple tracks and effects for recording and consumers purchased high end stereos to get closer to the music.

And in the eighties, MTV came along to make those who were anointed with airplay bigger and richer than ever before. You could reach everybody in the world, and everybody knew who you were.

And the nineties was just the eighties on fumes. Expensive videos with good-looking people.

And then the internet came along and blew it all apart.

First and foremost, mystery was history. Everybody was available all the time. Your heroes turned out to be just like you, but oftentimes uneducated and inexperienced. And going to a show became about the audience as much as the performer. Hanging with your buddies, shooting selfies, posting on social media. And with expensive tickets, acts were forced to present spectacle and perfection. Today’s big concerts oftentimes resemble the circus more than the Fillmore East.

But everybody has the same expectations.

Which are false.

The game has reset. It’s about the music. And this confounds not only the labels, but the creators.

Since the Beatles, songs came straight from the heart, they were personal testimony. But then opportunity cost became so high that the songwriter for hire came back into the picture. The labels try to polish, ensure success. No different from a movie studio making a superhero sequel. How often do the studios risk producing product outside their traditional wheelhouse? Almost never, comedies don’t play around the world and the spreadsheet comes before the creativity.

So now we have all these musicians who want in on a system that no longer exists.

Believe me, the independent artists complaining about streaming payments think they’re one step away from world domination. Something must be holding them back. The game must be rigged. Because they’re so damn good if they just got a decent chance they’d be ubiquitous, and rich.

But this paradigm is fading. Spotify statistics tell us that the percentage of revenue going to superstars keeps declining. If the superstars are reaching fewer people, what are the odds that you can reach many? Very low.

I’m not saying you can’t make a living making music, just that you have to adjust your perspective, how much money you need, not want, and you’ve got to work around the clock. That’s what it takes to get noticed.

Ironically, you should spend less time in the studio and more time promoting yourself. The exact opposite of what technology enabled in the seventies and eighties. If you got it right musically, the system would make you a star. Today you can get it right musically and only your parents are aware of your music.

No one seems to be able to adjust to this new game. The majors keep putting out less product while they slim the ranks of employees. How long til a crash? Well, this is what Boeing did. Rather than design a new plane to compete with Airbus, Boeing cheaped out and remade the 737, a decades old airframe that was never intended for this use. I mean at some point you’ve got to start with a clean sheet of paper, which is what Airbus did.

There’s no clean sheet of paper at the major labels. They’re committing the same crime from the turn of the century, believing if they can just get a handle on distribution, they can win. Yes, don’t pay those with de minimis streams and pay their stars a bonus. But that’s old thinking. Distribution has been flattened, everyone can get their wares in front of the public, the question is how do you make the public interested?

Well, the moribund labels couldn’t figure this out, so just like with Napster, the public took the great step forward, with TikTok. And the irony is those trying to break on TikTok are just the opposite of Lucian Grainge and the insiders complaining about payments. They’re doing it for free, often on a lark, pure inspiration, like the Beatles, et al. It’s about the creativity, and the majors haven’t been able to play that game in decades.

Yes, online creators are smart. They know it’s an attention economy. And to make it you’ve got to create 24/7 and there’s no guarantee of success. These are not the people complaining about streaming payments, those are people inured to the old system. They bought all the equipment, they might have even taken lessons. They saved up to record in a good room with a good producer and they think dividends should be paid when the game they’re playing no longer even exists.

In a world where we don’t even read the same news, what are the odds we’re going to listen to the same music? NIL!

But no one will own this. Not the musicians, the labels or the media. This would require vision, and there’s no vision involved, no planning for the future, no career outlook. Let’s just keep doing it the old way and expect it to be a success.

Want to succeed? You’re going to have to be different. If you’re a voice only, like on the TV competition shows, you’re doomed. The most important thing, as it has always been in art, is conception. The idea. To do what others have done is a fool’s errand. Who cares if you can sing, play and dance. Those people are a dime a dozen. Can you wow us with a different idea?

We don’t need your music. We don’t need anybody’s music. We need air, food and shelter, but we don’t need music. People might like music, but it is their choice whether to listen. Unfortunately, scrolling TikTok is individuated and interesting in a way programmatic radio with commercials is not. We live in an on demand, personalized culture and to ignore this is to be fumbling blind.

How come the influencers have it right and the musicians have it so wrong?

The influencers know you must be new and different and build a core audience and feed it each and every day. And if you’re lucky, you might make a living. And the day you stop creating is the day you stop earning.

Furthermore, not every influencer believes they’re entitled to a living wage. They play and adjust their wares to gain traction. And if they don’t get it, they stop. But I keep hearing from “musicians” doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different response.

If you’re not a good singer… Don’t tell me about Bob Dylan, he’s the greatest lyricist of all time!

You’ve got to have the chops, desire is not enough.

But desire is important, very important. But not as important as inspiration. And if you’re truly inspired and execute you might be able to gain an audience that keeps you alive.

Depressing?

That’s the game we’re all playing. Not to reach everybody, but enough people to stay alive. Why should it be any different in music?

What kind of crazy, f*cked up world do we live in where Taylor Swift leaves country for Top Forty and Beyoncé leaves Top Forty for country?

One in which the story is almost always about the personality and the money but almost never about the music itself.

There’s a lot to say about Beyoncé. Her marriage, her children, her brand extensions, but except for the tenure and breakup of Destiny’s Child, deep in the rearview mirror, none of it has been salacious, or political. In a world where many have children sans marriage and divorce remains rampant, Beyoncé appears to be old-fashioned, an American role model, not that those outside the Black community give her her proper due.

But none of this is the story, the story is the music. Starting with “Texas Hold ‘Em” and now the release of the album “Cowboy Carter,” which even has a cover of a Beatles song?

This has been fascinating to watch. The conversation has been about the music, and solely the music. Other than the question of whether Beyoncé will be embraced by the country community. Usually everybody’s talking about the penumbra as opposed to the nougat, the essence, the music itself.

And as far as making a revolutionary, political act… We hear all this hogwash about voter registrations… Even “Billboard” did a story how artists are so far reluctant to make political endorsements. Turns out political endorsements by musicians don’t move the needle that much. It’s been a long time since the Eagles dictated to Jerry Brown as opposed to the opposite. But what Beyoncé has done here is make a direct move into a community that is seen to be a walled garden with distinct rules that can’t be broken. Women on country radio? People are still saying there are not enough of them, despite there being a plethora of stars.

What qualifies as country music? Is it a big tent? Does it really represent America’s heartland? Never mind that Beyoncé hails from red state Texas.

There have been a lot of stories asking these questions. All because a superstar made a record. Garth Brooks went rock and changed his name to do it. Believing he wouldn’t be accepted by the rock community, despite loving and basing some of his stage show on the antics of KISS. And when he was unsuccessful, he went back to his original moniker and retreated to Nashville. But Beyoncé seems to have changed nothing about herself, there’s no compromise, no selling out, no whiff of money whatsoever.

That’s the only story that really penetrates anymore. America is thrilled with grosses, how much money you make, in the same way it is fascinated by billionaires. Make money good, not rich bad. Didn’t used to be this way, but that was back in the sixties and seventies and most of the people who lived through that era are off playing shuffleboard.

Now if you look at the Spotify numbers for “Cowboy Carter”…

When Morgan Wallen puts out a new album, tracks dominate the Spotify Top 50. Ditto Taylor Swift. That is not happening with “Cowboy Carter.” As a matter of fact, the streams for the album’s tracks are positively anemic. None of the twenty seven tracks breaks 100,000 streams other than the two previously released singles and “II Most Wanted,” the duet with Miley Cyrus, which has 106,156. Now numbers are fluid so soon after release, but one thing is for certain, “Cowboy Carter” is confounding listeners, even if it’s not confounding critics, who have raved.

You see Beyoncé has thrown the long ball. For most of the twenty first century everybody has stayed in their lane and delivered music that is close to what they’ve already had success with, or what else is having success. Which is why the hoi polloi, the casual listener who used to represent the wide embrace of music, making acts household names, is paying attention to “Cowboy Carter.” The music is the story and they’re intrigued by it. My inbox has e-mail from white boys checking out the album and loving it. Who else will be tempted to listen?

That’s a heavy lift. To get someone to make an effort, to actually click and listen to something. That is the game. However, it is not the only game. We can all name the ultimate in clicks, Mr. Beast, people like that. But they’re stunting, what is driving attention is not worthy of attention, never mind discussion. To go against type, expectations, to take risk, is anathema in our clicks-driven culture. They with the most clicks wins, right? Well, I’m not so sure. Instead of complaining that you don’t have what the superstar has, try creating your own lane, doing it differently.

And sure, Beyoncé doesn’t need the money. But at what point do you get sick and tired of doing the same thing over and over again?

Listen to the music or not, one thing is for sure, you know that Beyoncé has gone country. Just as many as know Travis Kelce is Taylor Swift’s boyfriend, if not more. “Cowboy Carter” is not gossip, it’s a Trojan Horse not only into the country world, but America itself, which has devolved into a sports contest between deeply rooted teams, the red and the blue.

And then you have the old rockers who hate country, calling it redneck dreck. But country is the new rock. And Beyoncé found a way to enter the marketplace without selling out, an incredible feat if you think about it. You can see the wheels turning. Someone had an idea, they were excited about it, rubbed their hands together saying this will be good. And had fun executing. This is far different from calling the usual suspect writers, producers and mixers to create a hit… You know, the opportunity cost is so high, you want to pick your investments and do your best to buy insurance.

Furthermore, what has Lucian Grainge’s protest against TikTok achieved?

It has hurt Universal artists. Clearing the lane for Beyoncé to clean up on the social media service of choice, the one that breaks records.

The acts always suffer. And so far TikTok is not backing down. So, the Universal artists are taking one for the team. So, they should be sure to ask Lucian for health insurance and cash for groceries when they’re down and out.

Now the game of consumption has completely changed. To employ the overused aphorism, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. These records exist online, waiting to be discovered, to be clicked on, to be embraced. When you break the mold it takes a while for people to catch on, for word to spread. But the music remains available. The story continues. Which is why it takes years for tracks to become hits.

I’m not saying therefore “Cowboy Carter” will end up being a monolith. No one has their finger on popular culture these days. You make a stand and do what feels right and laugh at the pollsters and prognosticators.

But one thing is for sure, despite all the hoopla, we live in a niche society. K-pop is huge. But either you listen or you don’t, you know the songs or don’t care. Other than BTS, I’m not sure the average citizen can even name another K-pop act, never mind a song.

But we keep on reading how big K-pop is.

I get it, it’s a business story.

But “Cowboy Carter” is a music story, and we haven’t had that spirit here since…

Tune in Saturday March 30th to Faction Talk, channel 103, at 4 PM East, 1 PM West.

If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app. Search: Lefsetz

Thanks for the rant against the anti-streaming royalty whiners.

The problem is people hear the word “million” associated with their stream counts and think that it should equal lots of $. Then they look at the imputed per stream rate and think it’s pathetic. The facts are:

DSPs pay 50-70% of their gross revenues to the royalty pool (more than 10x radio).

Successful records earn beaucoup bucks from streaming

Complainers are either not popular, or have deals with a label or publisher that is either still recouping the advance or is an old school deal taking most of the pie.

It’s useful to think of each stream as an “impression”,  and compare it to radio “impressions” and royalties. Since US radio doesn’t pay master royalties, keep it to publishing only. Take a typical audience for a major market pop station, and one spin is equal to 1x that audience in impressions. Take what BMI/ASCAPSESAC/GMR  pay per spin, and divide by the audience size. You get an amount per radio impression that is not light years away from the publishing part of the per stream rate. To get a million impressions on radio you might need somewhere around 10-100 spins depending on the size of the station. Nobody would think they are successful or expect large royalty checks if they only had that many spins at US radio. Big records have hundreds of millions or billions of streams and radio impressions. The radio and streaming royalties generated by a world-wide hit are significant and I don’t hear people attached to these hits complaining. It’s a hit driven business. Always has been, always will be.

The real injustice in streaming is the 4 or 5:1 ratio of the value of the master vs publishing. That’s a travesty and hopefully unsustainable. There is no fundamental legal or economic reason why it shouldn’t be 1:1, it’s just the result of an historic industry power imbalance favoring the record labels.

Best,

M

Michael McCarty

CEO

Kilometre Music Group

__________________________________________

The music business doesn’t exist anymore? Nobody is getting paid? Really? How many times do we have to hear this? It reminds me of the election being stolen. Say it enough times and people believe it. Streaming royalty payments vary according to the arrangements artists have with their labels and distributors, not with the streaming services. Pretty simple. Blame your team, not the streaming services.

Bob Anderson

__________________________________________

I cannot fu*king believe this guy is still at it. This is simple, DSPs payout a little less than 70% of revenue to rights holders (approximately 54% is paid on the master, and around 14% on pub side). Therefore, we have just 2 ways for rights holders to receive more money: claim more than 70% of the overall revenue, or force DSPs to raise what they charge customers monthly. That’s it! This is the entirety of the debate.

To me, companies retaining 30% to pay for technology / UX development and upkeep, servers, employee compensation, office/building rent, health insurance, taxes, etc etc seems fair. But I certainly can understand a debate on that.

He doesn’t seem like a dumbass, I guess he’s a liar.

Peter Wiley

__________________________________________

Everyone keeps blaming Spotify for an existential problem in the music industry. There’s too much supply and not enough demand. Musicians used to make money from royalties when record sales were driven by listener demand. Nowadays, there’s so much music and listeners don’t want more.

Indie musicians made the mistake of believing that if they released enough product, they could stand out in a crowded marketplace. One song a month. One song a week. But since everyone is doing it, the effects are minimal.

Streaming is like an advertisement for your project. Not an income source. We’re entering an era where streaming is the result of demand, not the driver of it. Playlists used to be a ticket to a larger audience on Spotify. Not anymore. Now you have to build your own audience, build your own fanbase, play shows, build community, and make people give a sh*t before they’ll even think about streaming your songs. Streaming is for the fan’s convenience, not your pocketbook.

The pinch artists are feeling is amplified because many of us were supplementing streaming income with sync placements and brand deals. But when TV production stopped and advertising budgets have been cut, so did the payouts.

Music is no longer “culture.” It’s not interesting enough on its own to move the needle. The future is in the niches, not the mainstream.

Nicholas Roberts

__________________________________________

Hi Bob,

I couldn’t stop giggling at this. A few months ago I did a couple podcast episodes on this; my grievances are almost identical to yours. I referenced Damon (he is among the “indie music guru bros” I mention), because I found his articles and tweets on the topic infuriating, as someone who works in music. My artist friends were starting to discuss streaming as if they knew what they were talking about because they read his pieces.

I knew I would get called a bootlicker for saying “artists aren’t entitled to royalties”, and I did at first. I’d rather be called a very inaccurate insult from people with zero dogs in the fight and be right than be Damon right now.

It’s validating to know that an industry “vet” agrees with me. And you’re right, it’s hard to get people to listen. There’s so much noise, and most people who work in the industry don’t even know enough to know that Damon was wrong. Concerning, to say the least.

If you’d like to listen to the next generation sh*t talker:

Take care

__________________________________________

Bob, I’m with you on this but I think there’s another way to think about it. Before mass media, most musicians made their living by singing for their supper. it’s the illusion of possibility that causes everybody with a stream on Spotify to think they are entitled to more.

When you stood on a corner or sang in the local bar you made a couple of bucks in tips and felt good about it. With Spotify it feels like you’re standing on the World stage right next to Taylor Swift and somehow it doesn’t seem right you’re only making a dollar.

Oh well,

Andy Romanoff

__________________________________________

Nobody is entitled to make a living from music.

First, find your audience.

Nobody who signed a deal 30 years ago should expect to be still making a living from their recordings in 2024.

But because streaming makes their music available again, they complain about streaming rates.

Well: first, find your audience.

Again.

Just like when you did the club and bar circuit back in the day, today’s recording artists find their audience online. And they work hard at it.

And if they get the numbers, they get the streams.

Doesn’t matter about the music. Could all those bubblegum pop acts from the 70s play a diminished chord, or solo like Hendrix?

Success is about communication with an audience.

First, find your audience.

It’s really very simple. I’m 75 years of age, and I’m looking forward, not backward.

Best wishes
Paul Phillips

__________________________________________

Complaining about streaming payments is just someone telling on themselves. They’re admitting publicly that they don’t have enough of an audience to make decent money from streaming their music and/or are lashing out because they were foolish enough to quit their day job without having enough income streams to not starve. I imagine for most of us, streaming money is funny money, it’s not something you’re going to be paying your bills with unless you’re at or near the top of the pyramid and it’s wild to me that more people don’t realize this.

Adam James Deiboldt

__________________________________________

I get the point.

I DJ, and I ask myself how can I get paid like the big time DJs.

It’s about demand.

If I can’t create the demand for people to see me, I can’t command high fees.

How do I create the demand?

Make music that people want to hear.

Even if I can out-spin someone, it doesn’t mean that I deserve more money.

But if they are less skilled as a DJ, but out-demand me and sell out a show, they deserve the money they ask for.

It took me a long time to understand this point.

Shammy Dee | Event & Luxury DJ

__________________________________________

EXACTLY… No one knows the history well enough… nor do they adjust well to the ever changing paradigms (that’s understandable)… but, bands like G500 can make $ via the never-say-die vinyl boom and do hip in-store unplugged gigs at the shops and do sporadic touring/shows– MANY bands don’t even have that luxury…

Patrick Pierson

__________________________________________

Seems to me that many ‘artists’ are longing for the old days and past royalty rate payments that have never actually existed…

Interesting…

Mick Dalla-Vee

__________________________________________

Spot on, Bob. What world is that cat living in?

In the 90s I toured with and did session work for some name acts, then started writing for TV & film in the early 2000’s, after the musician’s union wiped out all of our pensions with bad investments. The 2008 recession cost me 70% of my composing business in 18 months. I also released a niche album of my work in 2010.

Flash forward to now, and film/TV works that I created in my early career are still paying me in performance and mechanical royalties; and that album somehow caught on 10 years after its release and has over 2 million Spotify plays. But it’s rolls of nickels & dimes, not Benjamins that I can count on. It’s asinine to think that you can survive on anything but playing live at this point, since it’s the last price point musicians can actually control(!)

I’m grateful for even the minor success I’ve had, and don’t understand how anyone who’s done even a little bit of research can’t get this through their head: it’s. up. to. you. Create something people want; learn about and register your works with PROs, The MLC, Sound Exchange; play live gigs; have merch. Repeat. But most people won’t succeed, something that sobers me when I (weekly) hear something fantastic and it hasn’t ever gotten traction for whatever reason(s). Sad, but it has always been – and always will be – true.

– Scott

Scott W. Hallgren

composer / conductor / sound editor
Scootman Music Productions

__________________________________________

While I’m not a musician, I’m a writer that has self-published my own work to some modest success, and I wanted to give you a perspective from where I sit.

Anyone who is creative and hopes to make a living off of being creative needs to know that it’s a long road, and that (at least for writers like me) it’s nearly impossible to live off of royalties alone.  I hold down a day job.  When there’s so many things people can choose to read, watch, or listen to, just getting others to know you exist is a challenge in itself.  The sooner one accepts that, the better off they’ll be.

My writing is academic.  I think the reason why I’ve been able to attract eyeballs to my work is because I did the opposite of what a lot of academic publishers do.  They’ll charge anywhere from $75 to $125 and up for a book.  But I had to be realistic.  Nobody knows who I am; who the hell am I to ask people to pay that much for a copy of my work?  So I dropped the price.  Initially, I charged $25, but had to raise the price recently due to increased printing costs (the agreement I have stipulates that the printing cost has to be covered in the list price).  And I made the e-book price lower, and kept it there.  The result is that readers have checked out and purchased the work – they’ve decided the price is reasonable.  I guarantee that had I stuck to the old model I wouldn’t have had the sales I have.

Granted, the royalties are small, but what’s more important is that people are reading the book.  And as a writer, that’s what you want.  For academic works, selling 500 to 750 copies of a work is considered quite successful; it is very rare that an academic book will sell hundreds of thousands of copies.  I’m not quite at the 500-750 copy mark yet, but it’s getting there.  So my advice to creatives would be to do the best work you can, don’t be afraid to be unconventional, and to temper your expectations.

Take care,

Wes R. Benash

__________________________________________

I found this interesting because Damon/Naomi and Galaxie 500 frontman Dean Wareham had a falling out after Dean quit the band in 1991 due to creative differences, and Dean went on to form the band Luna.  Neither band is successful based on streaming metrics, Luna’s biggest spotify song is ~6m.  But both have avid cult followings in the vein of The Feelies, Big Star and Guided by Voices which you will find ample evidence of in online searches.  Dean has been prolific throughout his career and I assume has made a nice living of it, my sister just saw Luna play in Chicago two weekends ago.  Discovering Luna first in my early 20’s and then going backward to Galaxie 500, i always found Dean to be the creative talent for both bands, as even though all members of each band get songwriting credits, the consistency and volume of good (great to me) songs he has been a part of in his long career prove that out.   Not so much for Damon.  And to the longwinded point, tellingly Dean begins his memoir with a sour grapes filled quote from Damon  about Dean asserting control of the band behind their backs and having a spotlight on just him at a show for the first time.  Perhaps Damon has always felt underappreciated.

Chan Dillon

__________________________________________

Bob,

I wonder how many musicians who insist that Spotify is screwing them out of a rich and famous lifestyle pay for 100% of their software, recording and otherwise? And even if they do, how much of that software runs on the back of countless open source projects whose creators both have never been, nor ever will be, compensated even a single penny?

They’ll say, “oh, I have no idea. I don’t understand that stuff! Why weren’t they paid? That doesn’t seem fair!”, and truthfully, some open source developers have figured out how to get paid, but those are brilliant, diligent people who stand out from the pack. Most of the rest do it out of ideology, optimism, because they want to, they need to, they can’t stop thinking about the project until they bring it to life. And they give it away to the world for free, because it needs to exist.

Every single piece of software that these complainers touch has an extremely high probability that it only functions because of the thankless millions of hours, blood, sweat and tears poured into a void that practically nobody will ever see, let alone acknowledge, compensate or praise. Every website they visit, every app they’re addicted to, their inner workings stand on the shoulders of giants come before them, and the coders aren’t getting paid.

Frankly, why should they be entitled by default just because they made something?

And who would pay them?

Software companies who industrialize free software into a product and charge for access?

You? Me? The government? What about Elon Musk? He’s got a lot of money, maybe he can pay me because I made something!

Gregory Coleman of The Winstons never got paid for his iconic drum break that literally birthed entire genres like jungle and drum & bass.

H.P. Lovecraft never got paid and was dead in the ground before his groundbreaking contributions to horror / sci-fi were recognized, reprinted, reworked, and revered.

Hell, Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier died in 1830(!), and without his contributions to math and physics, there would be no signal processing, no sound cards, no digital music, no Napster, no iTunes, and certainly no Spotify.

Without that guy and scores of geniuses building upon his work, these dorks wouldn’t even have the -opportunity- to get paid their point-zero-zero-nine cents per stream!

I just don’t get the entitlement.

“I’m not paying for your fu*king software! I’ll steal it if I have to, and I’ll make music and art with it, and by the way I’m SPECIAL too, so if I don’t get rich and famous it’s Spotify’s fault, not because I made music nobody wants to listen to!”

Huh??

-Kevin Kaiser

__________________________________________

Sup Bob

Your only pal who owns a bus company here.

I sent you my song a bit ago. As you didn’t publish the link in your mailbag, I blame you for its measly 400 streams 🙂

I kid

I was actually super stoked when I got a royalty check from Spotify. It was for $2.

I’m totally serious and that’s not a number I pulled out of my ass. Real data from the trenches.

I don’t expect to make a living as a musician. I don’t expect to make it leasing buses out to bands I care about. I don’t want to sound like a Republican either.

I own my song.

I honestly uploaded it to see if I could figure out how to navigate the backend of Distrokid. The total strategy was to text the link to friends and post it on my little instagram page. 400 listens, hardly a blip. But a $2 royalty was, I think, amazing.

I knew I was putting no strategy into it. No marketing, I’m not working the algorithm.

All while driving bands, running a business.

Which one is my “side hustle”? Neither. I want to win at both.

I’m a lifer for music because it makes life worth living.

$2 for 400 people listening to my song is quite amazing.

That means if 4000 people listen it’s $20

40,000-$200 and so on

I think the thing that people are bitching about is just life.

Would you rather make $200 writing and recording a song? Or driving 8 hours?

I do both

So, thanks for your perspective Bob.

Here’s the video I paid a friend to make. It has 227 views after a week. If you post it in your mailbag, I’ll split the royalties with ya.

And I’ll still drive you on the podcast tour

“I Am A Robot by The Cle Elum”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG1v_zwMXe0&list=PLCloigebw3zp6e7W1sOa73PdvNFhED6cz&index=1

Best

Ian Lee

__________________________________________

My son is a 16y old professional musician (a Broadway run, national tour, Pro Tools certification, and loan-out LLC under his belt), and you’d be appalled at the disconnect in his “music business” courses.  He gets it, is graduating 1y early (can’t wait to get out of HS), and would be laughing listening to Damon & Naomi… “WTF is this $h!t, can’t sing, barely plays chords, putting me to sleep….!”

Streaming is not rocket science, my 16y old gets it quite easily.

David B. Weiss

__________________________________________

This guy was my TA in junior year English class!

Jim McCarthy

__________________________________________

We used to publish him at Bug Music- not a big earner and that was a long time ago.