[vintermann]

It absolutely does matter, and it absolutely does not even out. Background music is extremely profitable on streaming services. The more amenable to being played in the background your music is (whether at a party or around the clock at a hair salon or other business), the more you will make, at the expense of artists that are more suited for deliberate listening - even though those artists are probably why people subscribe to the streaming service in the first place.

[PennRobotics]

How exactly is it bad to reward musicians for having more airtime? It seems the market is working as intended.

Although, you seem to make a good point. BMI differentiates radio royalties by number of performances[1]. Except---and I haven't researched this very well---they seem to pay more if a song is more popular.

[1] https://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royalties

[jbjohns]

>even though those artists are probably why people subscribe to the streaming service in the first place.

Then surely the solution must be to try and determine which artist actually brought in the users and give them some kind of lead bonus. I would assume any platform that started doing that would eventually beat platforms that didn't because all the lead generating bands would move there and no new users would have a reason to go to the other services.