For most bedroom producers a certain number of streams (YT views included) is likely to be way more important than the actual revenue, but in another discussion on KVR people jokily divulge their recent monthly distro earnings of £0.03p, £0.001 (suggesting a very low number of streams) and I don't think this changes much about how they perceive themselves as musicians.
It seems being a musician is neither dependent on actual revenue or the number of streams (or any other mode of public acknowledgment
) and is ultimately an act of self-identification. Is it controversial that I kind of like the number of streams as a criterion to separate the chaff from the wheat? In my defense, I certainly belong to the "chaff" but would consider an x number of streams delightfuly "wheatifying". In other words I would need this extrinsic benchmark before validating myself as a musician and I would use these modern benchmarks to assess your claim to this lofty title... Perhaps you yourself take into consideration the n streams/likes/sales when sizing up your fellow musicians (even on a platform like KVR)?
PS: I know this subject is a bit more complicated when we focus on performing artists, some of them have virtually zero streams and are not the worse for it. Another benchmark could be the number of actual sales but this seems too limited a measure since almost nobody makes money from that (erm, which could mean it is the best criterion after all?).
