Streaming payouts are not starving musicians. I would first agree that streaming payouts are low but it assumes that streaming payouts are the only way an artist can make money or monetize their business. Most musicians are starving because they don't know how to monetize their own craft.

Your argument assumes 1 million streams is rent worthy. I would argue it isn't and if it is, why isn't 250k rent worthy? Or 100k? Because both numbers are impressive. But they don't justify "paying the rent." Again, your argument assumes the artist only monetizes through streams and if they do, they are foolish for doing so. There are plenty of other ways to make money. Love shows, touring, merchandise, partnerships, social media, fan clubs and engagement. Using collaborators diminshes profits - it's also optional. Signing to labels that eat profits - optional. Utilizing expensive distributors - also optional. Relying solely on streams - also optional. In addition to this, I never said artists expect too much, I'm simply saying they're expecting apples from a lemon tree.

As an artist myself, and an artist signed to Sony records, I can assure you, streaming is NOT the front door. If one thinks touring, selling merch and creating content for a fan base is a "side hustle", then they don't understand the idea of multiple revenue streams within their own trade. I will concede that streamers have a monopoly on payouts, however, that is not what we are arguing. We are arguing that their payouts are starving musicians. Had the argument been "streaming companies have monopolized digital payout structures", would've conceded the argument and signed off. However, we are arguing that streaming payouts are the sole cause of starving musicians when I am arguing it is a lack of a musicians ability to capitalize on a dozen income alternative streams available to them.