For the majority of artists, making music is financially unsustainable. According to a census conducted by the Musicians’ Union, nearly half of working musicians in the UK earn less than £14,000 a year from their craft, while a further half have to sustain their careers with other forms of income. It’s easy to imagine that these are the aspiring performers making tunes in their bedrooms and moonlighting as bartenders, but even household names are turning to alternative income streams.
British singer Kate Nash announced on Thursday that she would start posting pictures of her bottom on adult website OnlyFans to raise money for her tour. The Foundations singer has nearly a million monthly listeners on Spotify, and is playing all across the UK, including a sold out gig in London, but says that touring is a loss making exercise.
She started her “Butts 4 Tour Buses” page in order to ensure “good wages and safe means of travel for my band and crew”. Nash would rather you gawk at her gluteus maximus than listen to Foundations on Spotify. “No need to stream my music, I’m good for the 0.003 of a penny per stream thanks,” she told her followers on Instagram.
For an independent solo artist to make the UK living wage they would need 9 million streams a year. But most artists need far more as revenue is split between bands, with record labels often taking a hefty cut.
While Spotify can provide a reliable if paltry source of income, touring is only profitable for musicians playing big venues to sold out crowds. A survey conducted by rehearsal space network Pirate Studios found that only 29% of artists make a profit from tours. Rising costs and a flailing economy have exacerbated this, and a government report earlier this year found that artists are facing a “cost-of-touring” crisis, with travel, accommodation and food prices all higher than ever.
…
With her backside hustle, Nash follows in the footsteps of Lily Allen, who started selling pictures of her feet on OnlyFans over summer. She had the idea after seeing that her feet had a perfect five star rating on WikiFeet, a photo-sharing foot fetish website. Subscribers pay £8 a month to access her posts. In October, Allen claimed that shots of her well-pedicured trotters were earning her more money than Spotify streams – and that’s saying something, considering Allen has over 7 million monthly listeners and more than a billion streams on her top three songs.
Eventually we’ll only have female artists, who the hell is going to pay top dollar to see bon jovis hairy sweaty arse?
Hang on, she’s never going to be able to sell out a big stadium tour, so she’s effectively raising money for a tour that won’t make money….
Am I missing something?
Or is this just purely advertising for Kate Nash’s arse photos as that’s her new and only way of making any money?
The cracks are starting to show.
The cracks are starting to show.
SNORT
People like to listen to their favourite artists live. She is raising money to make that a possibility without having to underpay the people involved or break her own bank.
Not everyone does everything for money. For a lot of artists, musicians included, they do it for the love of the art.
Thank you, that makes sense. It’s a “I’m just trying to break even” thing.
Exactly
I see what you did there you sonnuvabitch
So uh… Got a link?
You can here, but I couldn’t find them.
Sexy
And all those music mogul cunts in the executive seats have never made a song in their lives. Mammon takes all, Mammon leaves none.
we’ve returned to the days of record labels and box offices railroading, using and abusing artists to make billions without a care in the world for the artist.
Can we end the gilded age part 2 please? Its a global problem it seems. But theres a lot of people around here absolutely fed up with this omnipronged fucking of everyone not wealthy.
Remember when Spotify’s CEO, Daniel Ek, said that it essentially cost nothing to produce “content”? Then he tried to walk it back when people pointed out what it said about his attitude to musicians who dedicate their whole lives to making music at great cost to themselves.
This word “content” needs to die. It conflates art with crap, because execs see both in terms of dollars and are too ignorant and incurious to tell or care about the difference.
I just needed to say I agree with everything you said, fuck Spotify, and I love you for saying the truth about “content”. It has consumed us.
If you want to support artists, try bandcamp, it has streaming but it’s more of a “try before you buy service”, and money goes directly to the artists’ accounts. Mp3/flacs with no DRM or just stream as much as you like. For an old-head like me who still has an SD card and a headphone jack on my phone, it’s perfect.
It doesn’t quite go direct to the artists accounts except on Bandcamp Fridays. But its a hell of a lot better than the majority of the other options even without that.
bandcamp gets the crown for “most least worst.” i’ve even met a few artists who say they prefer fans to stream on bandcamp to spotify or qobuz because they make enough more money per purchase than per stream, and enough streams convert to purchases, that they get paid more the more people are listening on bandcamp
For sure. I try to buy all the music that I enjoy on bandcamp if possible, because as you say a purchase goes a lot further for the artist than any number of streams I might do over my lifetime.
I try and buy albums at shows mostly! They don’t put ridiculous markups on stuff at small shows, but some venues want a cut of merch sales too, which is why I’m assuming some venues you can’t get a band shirt at for less than 30 quid. I could be wrong about this if course, but I have seen it at bloodstock where bands were literally just chucking merch off stage because they would have had to pay hundreds of pounds to have merch up in the festival shop.
Well, bandcamp bill their cut later as far as I’m aware, but when you buy an album you are paying into the artists PayPal account, you even see a partial email address. Unless that system is somehow lying.
Exactly this. I’m disappointed when smaller artists I love are not on Bandcamp.
What’s great is all the stuff I used to listen to in Uni (I’m 37 now) is also up there, like Torche and Manatees. Now I have the money to, I can chuck all these artists that I found in what.cd all those years ago a few quid. Whilst I’m sure they would have appreciated it more back in the day, I couldn’t afford it and spent most of my uni years flat broke.
Corporations are vile and cruel, more at 11.
This sounds like a typical musician’s life before there even was a “music industry”. The point of record companies has never been there for musicians to make a good living, it’s for people who own record companies to make a ton of money selling copies of their work, usually giving them nothing back but exposure that might help them get bigger and better gigs and sell more tickets - performing is how 99.99% of musicians actually make money. If an artist burns out, no big deal, there’s always an endless supply of naive hopefuls knocking on the door, thinking a record deal is their Golden Ticket.
Part of the point is that touring and gigs are no longer profitable either.
No longer profitable FOR THE ARTIST. Profit is absolutely being made from touring musicians, it’s just not going to the people actually making the music.
Yeah, fuck TicketMaster.
According to a census conducted by the Musicians’ Union, nearly half of working musicians in the UK earn less than £14,000 a year from their craft
Interestingly just under the income tax threshold. So you could quite easily set yourself up as a Ltd with you as the director and sole employee, claim the full income tax threshold as the employee and live off the dividends as a director whilst saving tax there too.
I wonder if these musicians have considered a more tax efficient route for their craft? What a crazy idea. Of course musicians are famous for assiduously paying all the taxes they can.
Someone with more time than me might be interested in looking up the holding companies for Kate Nash or Lilly Allen and checking out their finances. 🙃😄.
I’m lost, if they’re under the threshold why would you need to set up a company to make yourself under the threshold?
That’s not how it works. It’s not about setting up a company to make yourself under the threshold. They’re only under the threshold because of how they’ve structured their finances.
- Set up company.
- Be director of company.
- Also be only employee of company as a separate legal entity.
- Get people to pay the company for any work the employee (i.e. you) does.
- Pay the employee (i.e. you) a maximum of just below the threshold for income tax each year.
- Anything else starys in the company.
- The company pays the director in the form of dividends (i.e. you) at a reduced tax rate any extra money it may have collected.
- You’ve saved income tax entirely and you’ve reduced your tax liability on anything else.
Here’s Kate’s registered companies which are free to look up online by anyone. Whilst Kate the employee scrapes by under the tax threshold and has to graft on Onlyfans, Kate the director is in charge of a company that at the year end 2023 owed £164,586 (2022- £172,382) to the director (i.e. Kate).
Sorry, I’ve misunderstood I thought you were talking about the average musician earning £14k.
I don’t necessarily say it is or isnt spotifies fault, but how I see it is music kinda changed due to the digital age. Before the digital age, most people mostly needed to get into, or the eyes of a record label to get anywhere, and that had its fair share of dirty laundry (e.g whats happening with P Diddy). The digital age flipped the book around, where being able to publish music nowadays is extremely easy, but the problem is you’re competing against a wave of other users. It’s also significantly more expensive to do live concerts nowadays too (which is completely separate from spotify) as more and more concerts are getting canceled
What do record labels actually do in this day and age? Artists don’t need their capital to produce physical media anymore, so is it just promotion? Are artists able to make promotion deals with the likes of Spotify so they can at least cut out one of the middlemen?
Spotify is the labels and the middlemen.
The article implies otherwise
I think this is a mature take. Spotify should be more heavily regulated ultimately. Without some controls then their service is inevitable. If it wasn’t Spotify it would be something else doing the same thing.
Likewise with touring, breaking up ticketmaster and livenation would be a great start, but then you still have the cost of running a venue which is harder in the current economic climate. Ultimately local governments should be subsidising venues to ensure that artists have viable spaces to perform.
Leaving it up to the market results in the situation you have now where people think it’s logical to pay 1000s for a Taylor Swift ticket, an insane exercise of pure greed.
More power to these ladies, sex work is thankless. I do wish the music industry was in a better place to where people didn’t have to subsidise it with a secondary gig, even as heavily established professionals in the music industry.
Don’t know why sexual content is so distained.
Thought with the liberty movement in the 70’s, near 50 years later no one would be bothered.
That’s not the point. The point is that the music industry doesn’t pay artists a fair share.
In general yes. But this article is using the fact that those poor artists need to do dirty sex work to earn money to make it’s point. And this is stupid. Where is the “musicians have to work minimum wage jobs in fast food joints” outcry?
Show me the demand for my body parts on only fans and I’ll give up my minimum wage job.
Why should they work menial labour if they can make much easier money?
Exactly thanks.
deleted by creator
I already avoided this step by simply wearing arseless chaps onstage.
OnlyFeds - new instance funding model: Admins gone wild. The feddit.uk one would be a bit like Calendar Girls meets Austin Powers.
I would somehow make negative money I think
Maybe it’s worth bearing in mind Lemmy’s older, nerdier audience?
You remember those build-a-model magazines they used to rip off grandads with?
“Build your own model Lancaster Bomber! Only £1.99! You’ll receive a large piece of the model with your first issue! Then the rest of it in pieces over future issues! (Future issues cost £9.99 a week, for 500 weeks)”
So you get your “special interest” photographs produced into jigsaws, then sell one jigsaw piece a week, eventually completing the full photograph at the end of the year.
So you get a puzzle piece with a photo that might be a bit of boob, and after six months you have enough pieces to see that it is, in fact, a very smooth man’s knee?
Hahaha, yes, exactly this - and perhaps the same situation with “bum crack or inner-fold of a bent elbow?”.
A classic party game!
[off topic?]
Andrea True was a porn actress who achieved success as a disco singer.
Friggin immigrants again, I guess.
While she was working there, the Jamaican government banned asset transfers in response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. after the election of Michael Manley, a supporter of Fidel Castro. In order to return to the U.S., True would have had to either forfeit her pay or spend the money before she went home.[13] True, who by this time was trying to break into the music industry, chose to invest the money in recording a demo of “More, More, More”,
I love everything about this.
