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.

  • Fleur_@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Ughh another women forced into sexual acts wrapped up in empowerment and feminism story.

    • namarupa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Forced? They’re already making a shitload of money, they just want more.

      There are real people forced into sex work, this isn’t an example of that.

      • Fleur_@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Whatever replace “forced” with “coerced” or “pressured” if you don’t like that word. Doesn’t change the fact that young women are taking up sex work for financial stability when they shouldn’t have to.

  • Zip2@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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.

    • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

  • OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

      • OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

    • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        21 hours ago

        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

        • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          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.

          • OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            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.

      • OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    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.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 day ago

    And all those music mogul cunts in the executive seats have never made a song in their lives. Mammon takes all, Mammon leaves none.

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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. 🙃😄.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • intelisense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Part of the point is that touring and gigs are no longer profitable either.

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That’s not the point. The point is that the music industry doesn’t pay artists a fair share.

      • ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        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?

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      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?

    • misery mansion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.