The Case for Collecting and Supporting Musicians Tangibly

Originally published on Nippertown

The way we listen to and consume music has changed in a thousand different ways over the course of music history. I would argue that some of its largest evolutions have happened over the course of my lifetime, and by that I mean since the 90s and most especially since the turn of the millennium. I’m not here to talk about the invention of such technologies as the phonograph (invented in 1877 by Thomas Edison) or the gramophone and its records (as much as our own dear Nipper might want me to shout out such a listening device). Instead, I’m sort of here to climb up on a high horse and rant. I argue that the shift from physical music ownership has raised challenges particularly for small artists and have a call to action for music fans to support them.

If you walk into my living room, you’ll probably notice a few things. You’ll see a large collection of vintage cameras on display, you’ll see a gallery wall of some of my favorite photographs I’ve taken (many of which have been signed), you’ll see the drifting remnants of a scuffle between two or three long-haired cats, and you’ll finally land your eyes on the hundreds of CDs racked on shelves. I think I’m pushing close to 400.

I have always been a collector. Before I was involved in the industry, for me it was always a firmly-held belief in the permanence and tangibility of having real pieces of music in my possession. I have had fun (and still do have fun) poked at me because I insist on picking up physical albums at many different shows I go to. I’ll go to thrift stores, Last Vestige, and record riots and garage sales to just pick through the CDs. I’ll call my dad and ask, “Hey, are there any CDs you want me to look out for?” For the longest time, I even refrained from buying songs on iTunes because they weren’t “real.” After all, digital files get corrupted, erased, or simply lost and forgotten about in the thousands upon thousands of folders and devices we’ve had over the course of our lifetimes.

I couldn’t go without mentioning that as a graphic designer by trade with a professional goal of winning a Grammy for album design, one of my favorite things is looking through the artwork and getting inspired and saying, “Wow, look how creative this was!” One of my favorite artists' Passenger's albums are pop-up books. You don’t get that user experience with the ½” square in the bottom left hand of your Spotify window. One of the reasons I started my music graphic design service Band x Brand was because of how much I love and how important I think the design of albums is. It improves the listening experience. The album is just that: it’s part of a band’s brand and is integral to the way they make money, and history and data have shown that when album artwork became a standard part of music marketing, sales increased. For example, take a look at The Rolling Stones' album Sticky Fingers. This album, released in 1971, featured a cover designed by pop artist Andy Warhol. This artwork is so innovative and unique—it included a real working zipper! I’ve never seen it myself in the proverbial flesh, but this iconic album makes my design-loving heart go pitter-patter and certainly contributed to the album’s success and first-pressing price tag on Ebay and Etsy.

Pre-iTunes, I was never a Limewire or a Napster user. I think I recall Windows Media Player having some sort of database that I could download music from. I have memories of sitting with my friend in front of her computer sat upon a table or tray of some kind in the corner of her dining room. I can feel the carpet under my toes as we sat and perused these files listening to the likes of Daniel Bedingfield or Savage Garden, Frou Frou and probably even the colloquially-referred-to-as the “Numa Numa” song and other Y2K pop. Right click. Save as. Import to Musicmatch Jukebox, which was probably my favorite software next to Photoshop Elements and Rollercoaster Tycoon 2. Through college, I would use Audacity to record music off of AOLMusic and YouTube to have for my library. But even then, I was always just doing it until I could buy the physical album.

I have always been a proponent of the CD. Two of my earliest memories are getting Britney’s debut …Baby One More Time, which was the start of my music collection, and the pride I felt at being able to buy a CD with my very own money for the first time. I can taste the air and remember that feeling of sliding my money across the counter at the Disney store in Crossgates to pick up my own copy of the Kim Possible soundtrack. Both of these are still in that collection of hundreds of albums.

It really was always about just having it on my person. Ever since getting involved in the music industry, however, my beliefs on owning the music have just solidified.

It’s no secret that streaming platforms pay artists next-to-nothing in royalties for people streaming their music. On average an artist on Spotify would need to have a song streamed over 300 times to receive only one dollar in royalties. When you’re an artist like Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift, or BTS, this might not be as much of a big deal. However, if you’re local artists and generally smaller, independent artists, this can feel like a huge obstacle…because it is. And Spotify just announced that they’re making it harder.

According to Billboard and Music Business Worldwide, things are changing again and will only make it harder for smaller artists to bring in any profit whatsoever from these streaming services we all pay for, either through subscriptions or ad feed. Spotify’s royalty model is changing, and according to the article, “a new threshold of minimum annual streams that a track must meet before it starts to generate royalties. The threshold, according to MBW, will de-monetize tracks that had previously received 0.5% of Spotify’s royalty pool.”  I’m not claiming to completely understand any form of business and payout model here, but all I know is that this is bound to benefit the people at the top and line their pockets all while making it harder and harder for the incredibly talented musicians from all over this amazing world and all over Nippertown to earn a dollar. Capitalism really popped off today, ladies.

So, what is this whole rant really about? It all circles back to Britney Spears and Kim Possible. Buy the music. It should be pretty obvious that I’m not really talking about Disney, Jive and RCA—they don’t really need more money, but the point is more focused on those small artists you love.

How can you help? Go to iTunes and pick up a digital copy of their album or their single. Click purchase. If you can afford it, go to their website and buy that pin or that t-shirt you’ve been admiring. Attend their shows when you can, artists big and small, and swipe your card for a tour poster. Say hello, buy that CD or vinyl or cassette (because those are coming back for some reason. Pens at the ready). And if you can’t afford any of those things, engage with their content on social media. Like. Comment. Share, and encourage others to buy. That engagement helps reach so many more people’s ears.

And yes, also stream. I’m not saying don’t stream. I give our streaming overlords $9.99 a month. But in my probably unpopular opinion, your streaming is at best doing nothing for them unless you are paying them first for the music you consume. That stream on Spotify will go a hell of a lot farther if you buy that $0.99 single on iTunes first. Oversimplified, if you put that $0.99 single in your iTunes library and then stream it 100 times over the course of the year, that $0.99 is now $1.30 instead of the $0.30 it would have been before. And under Spotify’s new model, if that artist you love and stream 100 times doesn’t meet that threshold that they’ve arbitrarily determined with the label execs, well that $0.30 that they used to get from your 100 streams is now $0.

The ever-evolving landscape of music consumption, from the days of vinyl records and CDs to the digital streaming era, has left an obviously indelible mark on the music industry. I’ll be the first person to appreciate the convenience and accessibility that streaming services offer, but it is equally crucial to recognize the challenges they pose to smaller and independent artists we love, in and out of Nippertown. As we've seen, even if it’s easier than ever to put the music out into the world in the first place, the shift in royalty models can make it increasingly difficult and borderline impossible for these artists to earn a livelihood through their craft.

In a world where streaming has become the norm, the importance of supporting musicians by purchasing their music and merchandise cannot be overstated. Every digital download, physical album purchase, concert ticket, or tour poster bought directly from the artist and placed promptly in a plastic poster frame contributes directly to their ability to continue creating the music we love. It empowers them to share their unique talents and voices and improve our lives with it.

So, as music enthusiasts and patrons of the arts, we have a responsibility. Artists pour their hearts, souls, and literal blood, sweat and tears into their work, but making music is incredibly expensive. And we all know the devastating feeling when an artist we love is no longer making music. Let's embrace the tangible and the digital, the album art, the merchandise, and the experiences. By doing so, we can ensure that music remains a vibrant and diverse landscape, where even the smallest voices can be heard and celebrated.

Your support goes beyond streaming—it's a lifeline for the artists who write the soundtrack to our lives. Let’s be sure to help out all the musicians in our lives who make our existence just a little more bearable.