HOW THE MUSIC INDUSTRY LEARNED TO QUIETLY EXTRACT FROM ARTISTS
- May 8
- 6 min read
The music industry has never stopped extracting from artists. It just got better at hiding it. The old model was loud and obvious. Labels signed talent, owned masters, controlled distribution, took the majority of revenue, and cycled through to the next one when an artist’s commercial shelf life expired. Artists were products with heartbeats. The exploitation required no subtlety because the power imbalance required no justification. The question was never whether the system was built for artists. It was whether you were talented enough, desperate enough, or connected enough to survive it.
Then the internet arrived. Then came streaming and social media. For a moment, it looked like the walls were coming down. Artists could distribute directly. Fans could find music without radio gatekeeping. The old intermediaries seemed to be losing their grip.
But, no. They weren’t losing their grip. They were repositioning.
The Numbers Behind the Narrative
Universal Music Group posted full-year revenue of €11.83 billion (approximately $12.8 billion) in 2024. A 7.6% increase year over year. Its adjusted EBITDA hit €2.66 billion, up 13.8%. The company is not struggling. It is thriving. And understanding how it is thriving tells you everything about where power actually sits in the modern music economy.
The number that matters most —- catalog tracks. Music older than three years accounted for 66% of UMG’s recorded music revenue in 2024. In 2018, catalog and new releases were close to evenly split. By 2024, catalog had grown to nearly two-thirds of everything. UMG is effectively a real estate company whose property is the recorded history of popular music. The Beatles. ABBA. Bob Dylan. Amy Winehouse. Nirvana. It purchased Dylan’s master recordings in 2020 for a reported $300 million. And guess what? It keeps buying. That’s one revenue stream. The other, newer one is more instructive.
