Is Streaming Really Working for Artists?
There is a growing frustration among artists that the streaming era has created millions of listeners, billions of streams and unprecedented global exposure but not necessarily the kind of income that can sustain a music career.
The question is becoming harder to ignore: If an artist can generate millions of streams, why can they still struggle to pay the bills?
In a recent conversation circulating among music audiences, an artist questioned the economics of streaming, arguing that artists can accumulate enormous streaming numbers without seeing what they believe should be a meaningful financial return. The frustration is familiar across the industry: music is being consumed at an extraordinary rate, but many artists still feel financially excluded from the success of their own music.
The argument becomes even more uncomfortable when compared with the industry’s headline figures.
Spotify reported that South African artists generated more than R504 million in royalties in 2025, representing a 28% increase from the previous year. More than half of those royalties came from independent artists and labels, while almost 74% came from listeners outside South Africa.
On paper, this sounds like progress. But is it?
Spotify itself says there is no fixed amount paid for every stream. Royalties are calculated through a system based on an artist’s share of total streams, with money flowing first to rights holders such as labels, distributors and publishers before reaching individual artists according to their agreements.
That distinction matters.
The headline number attached to an artist’s streaming profile is not necessarily the amount sitting in that artist’s bank account. Contracts, ownership, publishing, distribution arrangements, management fees and other deductions can determine how much of the generated revenue ultimately reaches the creator.
This is where the industry’s biggest question emerges.
Are artists being paid for the value they create, or are they simply being paid for participation in a system that benefits everyone around the music?
Streaming has undoubtedly changed the game. An independent artist can release music globally without manufacturing CDs, securing shelf space or waiting for a major record company to open the door. South African music has travelled further than ever, with local artists reaching listeners across the world.
But exposure cannot pay rent.
A billion streams may sound like a fortune to the public, yet the real financial picture can be considerably more complicated. The artist may own only part of the recording. The songwriter may be entitled to another stream of income. A label or distributor may control the master. Publishing money may travel through a completely different system.
So when an artist says, “There is no money in music,” perhaps the statement needs to be challenged but not dismissed.
There is money in music.
The bigger question is who is receiving it, who controls it, and whether the people creating the music are receiving enough of it to build sustainable careers.
Perhaps streaming itself is not the enemy. Perhaps the real problem is an outdated business model operating inside a modern digital economy.
And if South African artists generated more than R504 million from one platform in one year, then surely the conversation cannot end with celebration.
It should begin with a harder question: Is this it or can the music industry do better?
