For music fans, streaming services such as Spotify, Amazon and Apple Music have transformed the way we listen, granting access to millions of songs at the tap of a screen or the command of our voice. While album releases and the chart show may no longer be the driver for hearing new music, this has been replaced by TikTok soundtracks and viral video audios for exposure.
But for many UK musicians, the rise of streaming has raised pressing questions about pay, sustainability, and fairness in the digital age.
If you’ve ever wondered how subscriptions and streams translate into money in the pockets of musicians, and why the system is under increasing scrutiny, here’s what you need to know.
From CDs to Streaming: A Shift in Power
For those my age, it was a stroll through the music aisle of Woolworths that was our first exposure to buying music, with the chart singles ready to buy and NOW that’s what I call music compilation albums. For some, it was recording the chart show off the radio on tape, to listen on our Walkman.
In the early 2000s, the rise of digital downloads marked a turning point for the industry, specifically illegal downloads on LimeWire which ironically created the subscription model. By the end of the decade, streaming platforms were redefining the landscape again, offering music libraries for a monthly subscription fee rather than risk downloading a virus with your song.
Today, streaming dominates the market. In 2022, it accounted for over 80% of UK music industry revenue, according to the BPI. That figure highlights just how far the business has travelled since the heyday of CDs, when physical sales supported a far larger share of musicians’ income.
Yet while the streaming model has helped artists with or without record labels reach audiences worldwide, it has also made their financial realities more complex.
How Royalties Work and Why They Frustrate Musicians
Historically, in the era of vinyl, cassettes and CDs, artists typically earned a fixed percentage of each physical sale (often £1–£2 per album), though labels would deduct recording and marketing costs first. With the rise of downloads in the 2000s, every 79p or 99p purchase carried a much clearer royalty split, with artists receiving several pence per track.
Performance royalties, collected by PRS for Music, also provided steady income whenever songs were played on radio, TV or in live venues. By contrast, today’s streaming model does not treat plays as sales but as licensed access, meaning revenues are pooled and divided by market share.
This shift explains why one million CD sales once meant a life-changing pay-out, while one million streams might bring in only a few thousand pounds. Although 80’s artists like MC Hammer may debate that (he went bankrupt), and our long time
The system now is further complicated by contractual arrangements. Labels often take a large cut before musicians see their share. For independent artists, distribution deals and publishing rights can also make a big difference.
It is little wonder, then, that the royalty system has been criticised as opaque. In 2021, a parliamentary inquiry led by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee called for fairer pay for artists and greater transparency from labels and platforms. It’s clear our consumption trends won’t change any time soon, but who profits should.
What Musicians Actually Earn
The figures vary, but for a sense of scale: one million streams on a service such as Spotify might generate somewhere between £3,000 and £7,000 for UK-based artists. While that may sound significant, it is rarely enough to cover the costs of recording, touring, promotion, and day-to-day living.
The Musicians’ Union has long argued that many working artists struggle to earn a sustainable income from streaming alone. Their guidance on streaming royalties emphasises just how unpredictable pay-outs can be, depending on territory, platform, and label agreements.
Even established artists are feeling the strain. Earlier this year, Brit Award winner Kate Nash (who continues to attract millions of streams and sell thousands of tickets) revealed that touring had become financially unsustainable despite her success. She made headlines in February 2025, saying the costs of recording, releasing, and performing live within the same year “no longer make financial sense.”
Nash explained that even after saving from a summer of festival appearances, she faced such heavy losses on tour that it wasn’t financially viable. “If I cannot make it work, how is anybody that has less than I do making it work?” she asked, pointing to what she described as a “broken system” where shareholders in streaming services and promoters thrive, while working musicians struggle to break even.
Estimated Streaming Payouts per Platform
| Platform | Average Pay Per Stream / View | Streams / Views Needed for £1 | Approx. Earnings per 1m Streams / Views |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spotify | £0.003 – £0.005 | 200 – 333 | £3,000 – £5,000 |
| Apple Music | £0.005 – £0.007 | 143 – 200 | £5,000 – £7,000 |
| Amazon Music | £0.004 – £0.006 | 167 – 250 | £4,000 – £6,000 |
| YouTube (Google Ads) | £0.0005 – £0.001 | 1,000 – 2,000 | £500 – £1,000 |
| TikTok (Creator Fund) | £0.00002 – £0.00004 per view | 25,000 – 50,000 | £20 – £40 (per 1m views) |
| Tidal | £0.006 – £0.008 | 125 – 167 | £6,000 – £8,000 |
| Deezer | £0.004 – £0.005 | 200 – 250 | £4,000 – £5,000 |
Notes for context:
- These are average per-stream pay outs before deductions (labels, distributors, publishers). Artists often receive only a share.
- Rates change frequently, depending on territory and subscription model (free/ad-supported vs. paid).
- YouTube, while low per stream, offers discovery power that can feed into higher-earning platforms.
- Spotify tracks must reach at least 1,000 listens in 12 months to become eligible for royalties.
While music streaming platforms dominate industry revenue, social platforms like TikTok also play a role. The TikTok Creator Fund (recently replaced in some regions by the Creativity Programme) pays out based on views rather than music streams. However, the rates are far lower, often estimated at just £20–£40 per million views.
For musicians, TikTok is less a direct source of income and more a marketing tool: viral clips can drive listeners to Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube, where royalties are higher.
So using a real artist as an example, Ren, who incidentally I was lucky to catch performing on the streets of Brighton on the August Bank Holiday weekend. Using one song as an example, Hi Ren has these figures publicly available:
- TikTok clip – 19.9M views (Rough earnings: £400 – £800)
- YouTube Video – 58 Million views (Rough earnings: £29k – £58k)
- Spotify – 56 million plays (Rough earnings: £168k – £280k)
In comparison:
- 1m CD sales (platinum record): approx. £1m+ in royalties.
- 1m downloads: closer to £70k–£100k.
- 1m streams: often just £3k–£7k.
- Busking on the streets of Brighton with the Big Push: £0
But these are the rare success stories, and lets take the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses off the halcyon days. My father was a musician in the 80’s and toured Europe, and this is not an About a Boy fairy-tale of living off royalties. It was a London council flat lifestyle.
His very close family friends who stayed in music complained it wasn’t worth doing since streaming took over. They didn’t mind the illegal downloading, it galled more to get paid the pennies.
Winners and Losers: Genre and Global Bias
Streaming’s global reach means some genres, particularly pop, thrive disproportionately. Major acts with large promotional budgets dominate playlists and recommendation algorithms.
For niche genres such as folk, jazz, or classical, discoverability is harder, and monetisation weaker. Independent artists often find themselves competing in a vast digital library without the support structures that major labels provide.
Yes, some artists do make it big thanks to modern social media, Justin Bieber is the classic YouTube success story, Lil Nas X is perhaps the most famous TikTok success story. And who can forget the sea shanty craze started by Scottish postman Nathan Evans. Londoner Lola Young found chart success with her song messy thanks to Nicole Ritchie, but many struggle to replicate the same success.
Which is a shame when some people just want to support their families just by making music; something they adore doing, and we love listening too. So shout out to talent like Vicky Sometani who is based in London, who deserves some exposure for the brilliant Where Were You. Support those creators without big label contracts doing it on their own.
Case Study: Ren Gill – Building Success Beyond Streaming
Ren Gill, a Welsh-born, Brighton-based musician, has become one of the UK’s most striking examples of how artists can succeed without relying on traditional labels or streaming pay-outs. It’s especially impressive with health issues of Lyme disease causing autoimmune issues and fatigue impacting his ability to tour.
Ren first gained traction by sharing raw, single-take performance videos on YouTube and Facebook, often filmed busking or in stripped-back settings. His music was written while stuck in his bed, it’s the definition of raw and dark from a man in pain. But people heard and understood. And they loved it.
His 2022 release Hi Ren, a spoken-word/rap exploration of mental health went viral, racking up millions of views across YouTube and TikTok, and earning him a loyal global following.
Rather than chasing label deals, Ren built his career through direct fan support, using merchandise sales, crowdfunding, and platforms such as Patreon to generate income. This grassroots approach culminated in mainstream recognition: his independently released album Sick Boi reached No.1 on the UK Albums Chart in October 2023. He got the news while out in Canada after more long-term exhaustive treatment for his illness.
Ren’s story shows both the opportunities and limits of the streaming era. While platforms gave him visibility, his financial sustainability came from a blend of community support, authenticity, and diversified revenue streams, not from streaming royalties alone.
Making Streaming Work: Practical Steps
Despite the challenges, streaming is not without opportunity. Musicians who integrate it into a wider strategy often see better results. Key approaches include:
- Diversifying income: Live shows, merchandise, teaching, sync licensing, and fan subscriptions (e.g. Patreon) can supplement streaming royalties.
- Leverage social media platforms: Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube allow artists to build communities and convert casual listeners into paying fans. Practical guides can help musicians sharpen their online presence.
- Keeping informed: Industry reforms such as the debate over “user-centric” payment models, where listeners’ fees go directly to the artists they stream — could reshape earnings in future.
Viewing streaming as a tool, not the whole picture: For most, it works best as a discovery platform that funnels listeners towards gigs, merchandise, and long-term loyalty.
A Shifting Industry
Streaming is only one chapter in the evolving story of how musicians make a living. The debates around royalties and reform are still live, and government inquiries suggest change may be on the horizon.
For now, the clear-eyed reality is this: while streaming has opened doors to new audiences, it has yet to provide most UK musicians with a dependable income. Artists who thrive are those who combine digital reach with diverse revenue streams and strong connections to their fans.
As the industry adapts, the challenge remains the same as it ever was: how to ensure that the people creating the music are fairly rewarded for their work.
