I ditched Spotify and set up my own music stack

So the author talks about how little money per stream artists make... but how much SHOULD they be making? What is fair compensation for writing a song?

In the old days, artists would join a label and put out an album. The artist would earn about 10% of sales or so (varies of course, but on average). So a $15 CD would earn an artist $1.50.

The article lists the 'price per stream' as about $0.005. So it would take about 300 streams of a song to earn the same amount as selling a CD used to make.

I feel like that isn't categorically less money than artists used to make per song listen? There are many albums I own that I have listened to way more than 30 times, which is what it would take for a 10 song album to get 300 song 'streams'

Is that a fair compensation? Why or why not?

I think artists should be able to earn money from creating music, but I don't know how we decide how much they actually deserve if we aren't just going based on the price the market sets.

Without giving specific numbers, I think the following situation is inherently unfair:

I pay Spotify $20. They take their cut (say, 50%) and there's $10 left for the artists. I've only listened to one small artist throughout the entire month. The artist does not get $10 but much less despite Spotify knowing precisely which artists I listened to.

There's just one problem with your model. There's no royalty difference between a Spotify subscriber playing one song vs 1000 songs if it's just % of subscriber's listening time. Someone who gets more plays by absolute numbers is going to be upset when they don't get a proportionate amount of money. The only way to make more money on Spotify is to get more fans and/or convince your existing fans to listen to fewer artists.

This is a popular HN suggestion for disbursement but it makes the math super weird.