On a quiet afternoon in Groningen, a musician uploads a new track. Within seconds, it is available worldwide. Within hours, it disappears into the endless stream of content.

This paradox - global reach, minimal reward - sits at the heart of new research by Dr. Robert Prey, Associate Professor of Digital Culture at the Oxford Internet Institute and long-time researcher at the University of Groningen. His latest work, part of the ERC-funded PlatforMuse project and executed together with Femke de Rijk, a research officer on the same project, examines how musicians across five countries navigate streaming platforms, social media, and increasingly, artificial intelligence.

What emerges is not just a story about music. It is a story about work, and about capitalism itself.

The promise and the reality of platforms

Streaming platforms were supposed to democratize music. And in one sense, they did. Today, most artists are independent, self-releasing their work without labels. But economic reality tells a different story. Across nearly 1,200 musicians surveyed worldwide, the majority earn little to nothing from their music. More than half earn less than €1,000 per year, or nothing at all.

And yet, paradoxically, these same platforms are indispensable. Over 80% of musicians say streaming is important for their career. Visibility, not income, is the real currency. The research captures this contradiction sharply: platforms are structurally essential, but economically insufficient.

The Netherlands: a revealing case

If this sounds like a global issue, the Dutch case makes it tangible. On average, Dutch musicians earn slightly more than their peers in countries such as Chile or Nigeria. But that doesn’t translate into stability. Most still cannot make a living from music alone. Many teach. Others take side jobs. Some tour constantly to make ends meet. “It’s not enough,” one musician explains in the study. “You need something else next to it.”

What stands out even more is attitude. Dutch artists are the most skeptical of the platform economy. Only 14% believe their careers have improved since the rise of streaming, while half say things have gotten worse. In a country with strong infrastructure and access, dissatisfaction runs deep.

© PlatforMuse - Robert Prey and Femke de Rijk

The rise of “invisible labor”

But income is only part of the story. What Prey and De Rijk's research really uncovers is a shift in what it means to be a musician. Making music is no longer enough. Today’s artist must also be a content creator, a marketer, a community manager, and a data analyst.

"Today’s artist must also be a content creator, a marketer, a community manager, and a data analyst."

Nearly a quarter of musicians spend more than half their working time on non-musical tasks, from social media to fan engagement. And the trend is accelerating. Almost 70% say they now spend more time promoting themselves online than just a few years ago. This is what Prey and De Rijk call platform labor: work that is essential, unpaid, and largely invisible.

Creativity, reshaped by the algorithm

This transformation doesn’t just affect workload; it reshapes creativity itself. A striking 95% of artists agree that being creative today also means being creative in how you present yourself online. That means thinking in formats (short videos, hooks, visuals), adapting to algorithmic logic, and optimizing for attention.

Artists describe the tension clearly. They want to be authentic but also discoverable. “I have to be unique,” one musician says, “but in a way the algorithm understands.” In other words: creativity is no longer just artistic. It is strategic.

AI: tool, threat, or something else?

Then there is the next wave: generative AI. Here, the mood is cautious rather than alarmist. Most musicians are not using AI to replace their work, especially not when it comes to fan interaction. Nearly 90% avoid automating communication.

Instead, AI is used as a tool for idea generation, production assistance, or planning and organization. Some see it as empowering. Others worry about homogenization — “a copy of a copy,” as one interviewee puts it. But across countries, one belief remains consistent: AI lacks something essential: connection.

A new model of capitalism

Step back, and a bigger picture emerges. Prey and De Rijk’s research is not just about music platforms. It reveals a broader shift in how value is created in the digital economy. Artists produce not only songs, but data, engagement, attention, and content ecosystems. Platforms capture and monetize this value, while creators struggle to convert it into income.

This is capitalism in its platform form:

• global reach without security
• visibility without compensation
• creativity without control

Between opportunity and dependency

And yet, musicians cannot opt out. Even the most critical voices in the study continue to use platforms. Because not being present means not existing, at least professionally. That is the ultimate paradox.

Streaming and social media have opened the door to global audiences. But they have also locked artists into a system where success depends on constant visibility, endless self-promotion, and increasingly, algorithmic adaptation.

For Dutch musicians and their peers worldwide, the question is no longer whether to participate. It is how to survive.

The deeper question

Prey and De Rijk’s research leaves us with a broader, uncomfortable question: If even musicians, the archetype of creative independence, are drawn into this system of constant optimization and precarious income… What does that say about the future of work for everyone else?