[solumunus]

It enables them to build small but dedicated global fan bases that support the artist directly.

The alternative is all music is paid only and they could potentially make more money, except for the fact that they’re completely unknown and there is zero demand for their music.

[teach]

I think this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason "all music is paid only" is the only option besides the all-you-can-stream for one monthly fee popularized by Spotify.

For example, the other day I discovered a local artist on Instagram. I went to her Bandcamp page and was able to listen to some tracks for free with zero friction. I ended up purchasing the deluxe vinyl, and it was one of my favorite albums that came out last year.

I've done similar with the radio. I went from hearing a track on the radio to purchasing the album on Bandcamp in like ten minutes.

Spotify and the like CAN help with discovery, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with their business model.

[cwillu]

It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases.

And no, that is not the only alternative. There is a fine article linked at the top of this very page that points out alternatives that an actual living and breathing artist prefers.

You've been sold a repackaging of “paid in exposure” lie.

[solumunus]

I read the article and it’s not taking into consideration my point.

> It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases.

It’s just not true. There are tons and tons of independent artists with small music careers who would almost certainly have no music career in a pre-Internet era, and the reason for that is free and wide distribution. It’s an incredible boon for small artists, especially in niche genres.