Ok. I still think that even though the oppurtunity to make and distribute music has risen. The actual success rate has went down. Mainly because of distribution powers like I was explaining.

Yes. The ratio youre explaining is simple exponential growth. Yes, diy industry makes more money than before simply because theres a bigger diy industry..... doesnt really state anything other than the obvious.

When you say, more artists are, "making a living" what kind of figures are we talking. $10k a year? $60k a year? Is this income just from streaming?

Not sure the dollar amount, I'm sure it vary's wildly. Based on tax returns, 1560 musicians were able to claim full time income as an independent musicians in the US in 2019. Things were declining across the board until 2016, when streaming came to the rescue. Not the greatest rescue, but at least things are trending in the right direction now with growth.

"In May 2019, there were 1,560 full-time independent musicians working in the United States, up from 1,290 in the previous year."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ependent-type/

It's @ newguy1 hard for me to believe the stats on indie musicians and @ newguy1 please restore what would have been after post #210

Interesting. The link you previously shared actually answers my question.

https://themusicnetwork.com/independ...revenue-rises/

"Nearly ¾ of indie artists earn less than $10,000 each year from their music, proof that earnings are still a big obstacle.

Nearly ⅔ of artists surveyed felt they needed to keep up other work alongside music to make ends meet.

Despite that, more artists feel empowered about their careers than ever before, and nearly ⅔ have a positive outlook about their careers."

That's all of indie musicians. Not those that claim full time on tax returns. Not sure what the average earnings among those that can claim full time is. Its going to be at least 30-40k to qualify.

I don't know what to tell you. Statista.com is legit. The missing post was a double.

Maybe you didnt read all of the information you've shared.

I'm happy to discuss any specifics. General statements like this don't offer much to discuss though.

Go back and read #212 and
#213 #215 .

Yes. For ALL of indie musicians, the average yearly earnings are less than 10k each. This would mean the thousands upon thousands of artists who file business taxes showing profit but also work a day job or have a side hustle.

You had asked about artists who "make a living" in post #212 though. Which would mean those 1,560 artists in 2019 that claimed full time earnings on tax returns. These artists will have to make at least 30k+ to do this. Some are probably making millions, some barely able to claim full time right around 30k or slightly less (me lol.)

Im just going to say this and then be done.
-An "average" is not the same as a percentage.

According to your info:
-75% of indy artists are making less than $10k a year. On music.
-Is $10k a year in the U.S really "making a living"?
-Like i said before, when you graph it on a chart like what is shown, exponential growth looks great! but, it just means more people are becoming indy artists, not neccesarily doing better. This is where the sense of optimism is coming from I guess. But, its rather misleading. Otherwise the "66% of indy artists surveyed", wouldnt feel like they needed supplemental income to make ends meet.

Or at least thats what I think.

My claim was more artists are making a living off their music than ever. This is a simple fact you can simply look up.

2012 was actually the year the most artists lived off their music. But outside 2012, more artists made a full time living in the US off music in 2019 than ever, as part of an upward trend since 2016, which was when the music industry bottomed out before finally turning a corner into growth again.

While newguy1 and chrisso clearly have opposing views, I would just like to say that I agree with both of them.

I'm sorry - I must be missing something; what do you mean when you say 'claimed full time?' You don't need to file unless your gross annual income is $12,200/year - which, IMO, isn't 'making a living.'

I meant that you’re reporting independent artist as your sole source of income (or at least primary source, as some go venture capitalist and invest in stuff once they have money). That’s what a full time independent artist is, by definition. If you have multiple sources of income you’d be reporting those sources.

The median earnings for artists in the US is 20k-25k (https://www.musicindustryhowto.com/h...usicians-make/)

To be full time you realistically need to be pulling 30-40k. So it can be assumed that the 1,560 artists reporting as full time make at least that.

The article i linked comes to the same conclusion.

What kind of life you do get making 30-40k? That's barely minimum wage. And you have to fight for it, every day of your life. What if your inspiration goes away and suddenly you can't write anything (once you get into your 40s that's a reality)? That's a terrible life choice to pursue imo.

That’s an educated guess as to the minimum amount of money people are able to claim full time off of.

I’m sure most full time indie artists do a whole lot better than that, into multi millions. My experience has been more like the author of that article: some years are a money haul, others i hardly make anything. You always want to live below your means as a creative and account for down times. Even at the highest levels, you hear about Johnny Depp and Nicholas Cage going broke because they lived as if their best years would always be there.

It’s the music biz. It’s not for sane people wanting a safe and secure life. Never has been.

Back in the day you were either a major label artist or you were out. There’d be a few hundred full time artists at any given time, that’s it.

I'm curious about one thing...

So if I release my music on my own fake label... and IF it's really good... "IF"... Does it increase or diminish my chances of getting picked up by a real record label? Again, not looking for money, but just for pride and self-actualization so I don't care if it's "worth" it in any way. It'd be a truly symbolic achievement for me, like some accomplishment plaque on a wall.

Let's say it gets noticed by someone from a real label, but do they just look at it and like "oh, they're already signed" and move on, or will this not stop them from contacting the artist and making them a better offer?

Hypothetically of course, I know the chances of this are extremely thin at best, but still...

This won't hurt you at all. Major labels specifically look out for released tracks/artists that are doing well to upstream. "Upstreaming" is the current word for taking a released song and re-releasing it on a major to a larger audience with more budget behind it.

Ol' Town Road was an upstream. #1 on the charts for 15 weeks or something last year.

Like in "The Graduate", one word...
"Media".
Chris

Anyone working at a record label will know if a given label is actually a credible indie, or an imprint of a competitor.

Unless you’re on a competing major, they wouldn’t care at all.