Blockchain to blockchange? NFTs and DIY entrepreneurship in music production

Abstract

Recently, developments in blockchain technology have shaken up the creative industries. Especially in the visual arts, NFT trade gained traction. Yet, musicians have also experimented with implementing blockchain technology. Most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, the sales of NFTs were thought to compensate for some of the income loss caused by restrictions on live music. This paper explores why musicians engaged with blockchain technology, specifically by selling their music as NFTs, and how they perceive this affected their income, work practices and business models. Building upon 14 interviews with musicians who have sold their songs as NFTs, we highlight two main motivations for selling music NFTs: commercial autonomy from gatekeepers and platforms, and artistic autonomy. Financial gains were less prevalent and often remained obscured in respondents’ discourses. Above all, this research shows that pursuing autonomy and authenticity remains key for musicians, regardless of their appetite for new financial-technological innovations.

Introduction

In March 2021, visual artist Beeple made global headlines by selling an NFT (non-fungible token) of his work for no less than $69 million (Kastrenakes, 2021). NFTs of visual artworks suddenly became mainstream, and soon spilled over to other sectors, such as the music industry. Jay-Z sold his own NFT for $138,600 to celebrate the 25^th anniversary of his debut album Reasonable Doubt, and other major artists and bands such as Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Kings of Leon and Linkin Park also jumped on the NFT bandwagon (Daly, 2021; Dolmetsch, 2021). NFTs are digital items that are linked to digital material, such as a song or a digital artwork (Ghelani, 2022). They are unique digital assets (tokens) that cannot be replicated. NFTs are tied to blockchains, such as Ethereum, which facilitate (financial) transactions without having to rely on third parties (i.e., decentralized governance).

Though at this moment NFT sales are fickle at best, blockchain and NFTs swamped creative industries discourses in the early 2020s. The emergence of a potential new market invited musicians to rethink their business models. During the height of the NFT mania, music enthusiasts and superfans paid substantial amounts of money for NFTs, both as a (high risk) investment and as a means of expressing their taste. Existing studies have explored the opportunities of blockchain technology (on which NFTs are based) and NFTs for the creative industries (Chalmers et al., 2022; Malik et al., 2023) and the possible effects on business models in the music industry (Behal, 2022; Krasikov, 2022; Owen and O’Dair, 2020). However, these studies have mainly looked at the strategies and (lack of) success of celebrity musicians (Krasikov, 2022). Much less is known about how and why musicians – beyond the famous few – engage in such alternative business models, even though this group constitutes the lion's share of the music industry. As the impact of such new technologies depends on the extent and ways they are adopted throughout the entire music industry, the perspective of musicians matters. Therefore, this paper seeks to explore how musicians themselves perceived these opportunities.

We look at changing business models in relation to careers in music and entrepreneurship, as starting – but also sustaining – a career in music has become increasingly complex. Most profoundly, the emergence of music streaming services (Hesmondhalgh, 2021a, 2021b) and the recent global pandemic have had substantial consequences for making a living as a musician (Green et al., 2022; Howard et al., 2021). Against the backdrop of these developments, the emergence of NFTs could be perceived as an opportunity for musicians, as NFTs may provide an alternative way to mobilize economic capital (Scott, 2012). At the same time, musicians have shown to have reluctant attitudes towards entrepreneurial activities (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b), which may impact the willingness of musicians and audiences to engage in NFT trade. To gain further insight into this topic, and building upon 14 interviews with musicians who have sold their music as NFTs, this paper poses the question: ‘Why and with which self-perceived effects do musicians engage with blockchain technology, specifically by selling their music as NFTs?’

This research aims to contribute to the extant literature on music production, entrepreneurship and technological innovations by exploring engagement with blockchain technology through the lens of DIY entrepreneurship. First, we are asking whether NFTs are the next step beyond the romantic ideal of the autonomous, authentic musician (Albinsson, 2018; Haynes and Marshall, 2018b) or a further commercialization of the day-to-day activities of professional musicians (Everts et al., 2021; Haynes and Marshall, 2018a). Second, we question whether taking back the ‘ownership’ of music through blockchain technology marks a return to the DIY defaults that gained momentum in the 1970s (Bennett and Guerra, 2023). Combining the highly commercialized and global nature of NFT sales with the more political tradition of DIY, we bring nuance to the technologically deterministic idea of field-changing innovations, and also show how older notions such as DIY can be reinterpreted to fit the twenty-first century field of music production. This way, this paper also contributes to the growing branch of research in cultural sociology problematizing the utopian discourses around entrepreneurship in the creative industries (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b). Finally, building upon Scott's (2012) analysis of capital mobilization among musicians, this paper contributes to the vast field of work on capital conversion in the creative industries at large and music specifically (Martin et al., 2023; Sapiro, 2023; Varriale, 2015) by exploring the emergent intermediating role of blockchain technology, and by discussing how this new type of intermediary affects the way and ease of capital conversion.

Literature review

The changing nature of the music industry

The contemporary music industry has been subject to major changes, many of which have had a significant influence on the day-to-day activities of musicians. Most profoundly, the model of production, promotion, and consumption prevalent in the second half of the twentieth century has been under pressure for more than two decades as a result of new developments such as the emergence of social media, downloading, and streaming. Musicians are now able to directly connect to audiences and promote their work through their own networks, and music streaming platforms such as Spotify now provide services that give access to a wide range of on-demand music catalogues (Hesmondhalgh, 2021b). As a result of music being available for free or for a low monthly fee, record sales have plummeted. Though streaming revenues, music rights, and performance rights alleviated some of the sales losses, the record sales highs of the early 2000s are no longer met (Hesmondhalgh, 2021a; IFPI, 2021). Nevertheless, despite reduced income from record sales, active consumers are now spending more money on complementary revenue sources such as live music, making streaming a promotion tool to profit from other activities (Wlömert and Papies, 2016). Thus, new ways of making money have emerged, yet they require new ways of positioning oneself as an artist. This has strong effects on how musicians get by, as they increasingly became reliant on other sources of income, most importantly, live performances (Von der Fuhr, 2015).

Yet, when the COVID-19 pandemic curbed opportunities to play, musicians were again forced to rethink their business models (Kimenai et al., 2022; Howard et al., 2021). Musicians had to cancel tours, venues closed, and streaming royalties alone were not sufficient to compensate. For example, in the Netherlands, the number of live performances in 2020 was reduced by 76% compared to the preceding year, and audiences even shrank by 80% (VNPF, 2021). Though venues and musicians received some government support in many European countries, this was rarely enough to break even. Especially self-employed musicians and music industry workers suffered financially during the pandemic. Consequently, during and after the pandemic, musicians needed to find new ways to make a living (Van Gijssel, 2022). Though the pandemic is – at the time of writing – a bad memory for most, the disappearance of work and income has left substantial traces in the music industry; not only in dismantled infrastructures, but also in the emergence of new business models.

The (entrepreneurial) working lives of musicians

The developments described above also had a profound effect on the working lives of (independent) musicians, which are historically defined by a notoriously complicated relationship with the pursuit of profit and entrepreneurial activities. Musicians – especially those outside of the commercial circuits of the mainstream music industry - engage in a mode of musical production that is called DIY. DIY music has a long history, often connected to the emergence of the anti-establishment and anti-pretentiousness punk scene in the 1970s, and manifests in a political ethos of resistance. Yet, as Bennett (2018) and Guerra (2021) argue, beyond the romantic anti-establishment rhetoric, DIY also emerges out of the necessity for independent musicians to survive.

Drawing heavily on Bourdieu's field theory (1984, 1996), Scott (2012) shows how such independent musicians lack access to economic capital. To develop a career in music, they need access to capabilities and resources that go beyond their own skills and capital as musicians (think about recording videos, developing promotional materials, or organizing international tours). The financial investments required for these activities often surpass the economic capital available to musicians. In lieu of economic capital, these independent musicians need to mobilize alternative capitals, including social, cultural, and symbolic capital (see Bourdieu, 1997), to make a living and continue their artistic practices. They usually do so by working for ‘exposure’, aiming to generate ‘buzz’ that signals their seriousness as artists. Songs, performances, and videos are, in this way, all sources of recognition that carry a certain exchange value (Skeggs, 2004). Independent musicians, in short, draw upon a set of ‘DIY entrepreneurial’ skills and practices. Guerra (2021), for example, shows that musicians employ everyday DIY practices such as event management, producing, and distributing music, teaching, organizing local rehearsals, and engaging in community outreach.

In the streaming era, this means concretely that musicians are not only involved in making music, but also in a wide range of managerial, business, and technical activities (Everts et al., 2021; Haenfler, 2018; Hughes et al., 2016). Based on their diary study, Everts et al. (2021) evince that although on average independent pop/rock musicians spent 41% on creative work such as performing, rehearsing, and writing, they also allocated 17% of their time to managerial activities, such as band meetings and strategy discussions; 16% of their time was dedicated to administration and management. Tech activities constituted 7%, and the remaining 19% is for other activities such as travelling.

This indicates that musicians engage in a plethora of non-creative tasks, translating music scene-related DIY dispositions into entrepreneurial qualities (Haenfler, 2018). At the same time, Haynes and Marshall (2018b) emphasize that rock, indie and alternative musicians often eschew directly perceiving and promoting themselves as entrepreneurs. Though many traits of musicians can be interpreted as highly entrepreneurial – exhibiting creativity, having a visionary quality, performing socially vital functions, accepting risk, dealing with uncertainty – the commercial gain (i.e., economic capital) is often only pursued indirectly (Scott, 2012). Shying away from openly pursuing direct financial rewards, traditionally, the artistic logic of production dominated the music industry, valuing creative autonomy, anti-utilitarianism, and avoiding accusations of ‘selling out’ (Bourdieu, 1993; Scott, 2012).

Though musicians have engaged in both commercial and independent practices (Negus, 1995), the romantic ideal of the autonomous, independent artist is increasingly under pressure due to the major industry transformations sketched above (Klein et al., 2017). Indeed, though Albinsson (2018) confirms that there is some remaining reluctance by musicians to call themselves entrepreneurs, he adds that freelance artists – especially the younger generations – understand the value of being more entrepreneurial. This becomes more salient in today's rapidly evolving music industry, where generating ‘buzz’ (Scott, 2012) in the traditional way (through promotional activities, live music, etc.) has been impossible for a significant period of time during the COVID-19 pandemic. Independent musicians have been forced to search for new ways both to construct themselves as subjects of value (Skeggs, 2004) and to directly generate an income. In other words, they are looking for DIY practices out of necessity (Guerra, 2021). One of these emergent practices is the minting and selling of NFTs.

NFTs as emerging resources in the creative industries

The trading of music NFTs emerged as a subfield when music entered the broader field of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, commonly known as Web3. NFTs are ‘digital items that are often linked to one-of-a-kind digital material, like music or photographs’ (Ghelani, 2022: 1), and as such, they are digital assets (tokens) that are unique and cannot be replicated or exchanged for an equivalent item. NFTs are built using blockchain technology (Rennie et al., 2022), and are hence always connected to an existing blockchain, such as Ethereum. Blockchains facilitate agreement on events, including (financial) transactions, without having to rely on third parties (i.e., not owned by one person, business, or institution). The decentralized nature of blockchains allows users to view and coordinate their actions, and those of others. Users can easily agree on events in the form of a transaction that relies on public-private key encryption technology. This indicates that a transaction may only be sent from an account by the person who is in possession of its private key (Rennie et al., 2022). Blockchains keep record who owns an item and, as such, assist to verify authenticity, traceability, and ownership of an NFT (Sharma et al., 2022).

NFTs are created by adding a ledger entry to a blockchain, a process that is called minting. In the minting process, a smart contract is created, which describes the asset (e.g., a song or special tickets to events) associated with the NFT, and determines the ‘rules’ associated with the NFT once written to a blockchain. This is usually done through NFT marketplace platforms such as OpenSea (which sells music NFTs next to e.g., digital art or assets in digital games) or Sound.xyz (specifically dedicated to music). These platforms offer authoring tools that help creators mint NFTs. Once the NFT is created, (parts of) it can be bought by audiences using cryptocurrency (e.g., ETH on the Ethereum blockchain). Owners then ‘hold’ and access NFTs in their cryptowallet (Rogers et al., 2023). NFTs are often sold for a relatively low price, e.g., the equivalent of twenty dollars, though prices have gone up to thousands or even millions for NFTs associated with famous artists.

Yet, besides buying ‘new’ NFTs, owners of an NFT may also (re)sell and trade their asset. Secondary sales may also happen on the dedicated marketplaces described above, such as OpenSea. Depending on the ‘rules’ written into the smart contract, resales and trade may automatically distribute royalties to the original creator, usually as a percentage of the sale price every time the NFT is resold. For example, if an NFT has a 10% royalty fee in the contract, a (re)sale will automatically transfer 0.1 ETH to the creator on a 1 ETH (re)sale, regardless of how many times the NFT has changed ownership. This means that, potentially, creators will continue to benefit from their work as the prices of their NFTs go up, even though they are no longer involved in the trading process. This also means that value is constructed by the market, and not set a priori by intermediaries of production (cf. Lizé, 2016).

From a consumption perspective, Ankenman (2023) explains several reasons why ownership of NFTs became popular. First, the NFT is connected to an encrypted blockchain, which is secure and provides irreversible records of ownership. An NFT, as such, comes with a proof of ownership of a particular digital item. Though there can be copies of, for example, a song or a digital artwork, just like there can be copies of any original artwork, the NFT guarantees ownership of the ‘original’. This makes NFTs a form of digital collectibles that benefits from the idea of scarcity. Once an artist starts attracting more attention, NFTs may be sold for a high(er) amount of money, which may make NFTs attractive as a financial investment. Second, by building a blockchain-based community, NFTs can be utilized beyond the ownership and value they speak for. Owning an NFT can give access to unique and exclusive content or experiences, such as entrance to a private chat room or a say in the creative work of a musician. Finally, consumers may develop an emotional connection when buying an NFT, serving as a proof of authenticity or passion (Ankenman, 2023; Rennie et al., 2022).

Though the potential of NFTs for the creative industries has received some academic attention from a technological and consumer perspective, knowledge about motivations for makers is much scarcer. Potential motivations for artists – in the broad sense of the word – are for example exploring interesting properties of NFTs (e.g., uniqueness and proof of ownership), expressing personal emotions, expressing creativity, exploring new ways of artistic creation, and leveraging new business models (Rennie et al., 2022; Sharma et al., 2022). This means that artists may engage in NFTs for reasons that go beyond making money alone. Yet, the few studies concerning artist motivations usually focus on visual artists, as visual arts were one of the first sectors in which NFTs took off. We know much less about other cultural fields, including music.

Music NFT trade is a market that recently emerged at the intersection of cryptocurrencies and contemporary music production and consumption. In such incipient markets, ‘rules do not yet exist but […] actors, by virtue of emerging, dependent interests and worldviews, are being forced increasingly to take one another into account in their actions’ (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012: 87). What is important in these new markets (which Fligstein and McAdam refer to as ‘strategic action fields’) is that ‘new’ markets often emerge in proximity to ‘old’ markets, and remain in close contact to them. If we follow the promises of the NFT trading outlined above, engaging in this new market could yield substantial financial success for musicians.

Yet, at the same time, investing in this new way of selling music requires extensive investments in time and knowledge, and is generally far removed from the romantic idea of music making described above (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b). Similarly, we know little about which practices, dispositions and forms of legitimation musicians entering this new market take from their experience as musicians. What motivates musicians to sell their music as NFTs, and how do active sellers integrate blockchain technology into their broader set of activities? This research explores these questions by looking specifically at the motivations and strategies of musicians that have entered this NFT market.

Data collection and analysis

Given the relatively small population of musicians selling their songs as NFTs and the exploratory nature of this research, we relied on qualitative, semi-structured interviews with musicians that were experienced in minting music NFTs, and sold those on online NFT trading platforms. Sampling was done through a music NFT platform called Sound.xyz, which lists artists using NFTs. 135 artists active on Sound.xyz were approached, mostly via a direct message on Instagram and X, of which 14 were willing to be interviewed. 13 of these interviews were video recorded via Microsoft Teams, and one consisted of written responses, as this was preferred by the respondent.

The interviews were held with four women (operating solo), eight men (operating solo), one duo consisting of a man and a woman, and a band consisting of four men. The average age of the participants was approximately 30 years old and ranged from 24–35. Ten respondents lived in the United States, out of which eight were based in Los Angeles. Others were German or from the United Kingdom. In terms of music genres, the group is highly diverse. The majority described their genre as popular music, though six respondents also referred to different types of electronic music (EDM, techno). A minority claimed to make R&B, soul, or rock music. What stands out, however, is that nine out of fourteen respondents self-described as making an alternative or indie type of their genre (e.g., alternative rock, indie pop). Respondents had between four and eighteen months (eight on average) of experience in minting NFTs and released between one and six NFTs on Sound.xyz (three on average). They had between 8 and 587 collectors, the majority between 10 and 100. They were also diverse in audience reach. The average was almost 110,000 monthly listeners on Spotify, with one having more than 400,000 monthly listeners (two were not active on the platform).

The interviews primarily focused on how musicians use NFTs and their motivations to do so. They took place between April and June 2023, and lasted between 30 and 75 min. The names of the respondents have been pseudonymized to guarantee their anonymity. ¹ Participants read and signed the consent form before the interview, and consent was verified before starting. After the interviews were conducted, they were transcribed and analysed using the program ATLAS.ti. Following the procedure of constructivist grounded theory, conducting the interviews went hand in hand with the coding and analysis phases (Charmaz and Thornberg, 2021), with findings from the first interviews being explored further in the subsequent interviews. We began with open, line-by-line coding. In the second stage, we started comparing the codes and data (Charmaz and Thornberg, 2021; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Given its constructivist nature, we focused here on earnings, entrepreneurship, motivations, and artistic creativity as main concepts. In the third stage, we reduced codes and focused mainly on the two overarching categories: motivations for engaging with NFTs, and NFTs as the new DIY. The results section further unpacks these themes.

Results

‘A potential way out’: Pursuing commercial autonomy

In the Web2 model, driven by user-generated content, social networking, and streaming applications, it is challenging to make a sustainable living as a musician (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2021). Therefore, it is no surprise that interview respondents saw making money as one of the key motivations to use NFTs, which resonates with the findings of Sharma et al. (2022) on motivations to sell NFTs in the creative industries at large.

First, in line with a multitude of critics, Ethan [M, alternative indie pop] argued: ‘how currently Spotify payout rates are… [it] just does not make any sense’. Given the importance of streaming platforms, respondents felt that they did not have a choice and had to accept the payout rates of what they saw as a minuscule fraction of cents. Many respondents juxtaposed these payout rates to NFT earnings, which are organized differently, only requiring a few sales rather than millions of streams. Mary [F, alternative R&B] exemplified this by sharing that: ‘even with my last drop, I have sold eight out of the 25 editions, but that still equates to the same amount of money as if I had gotten like 200.000 Spotify streams’. Besides the payout rates of music service providers, the payout frequency was also a problem for many of the respondents. As Monique [F, pop music] put it, on Spotify, ‘they pay you four times a year. That is not a job. Nobody. No other job pays you four times a year’. By way of contrast, NFT platforms allow cashing out immediately.

Second, musicians perceived more financial autonomy as NFTs cut out middlemen, ensuring that, in the words of Ethan [M, alternative indie pop], ‘money is going towards the actual creatives’. Mary [F, alternative R&B] stated that sales went directly in her pocket: ‘you know, no record label, no middleman, just people supporting [musicians] directly’. Moreover, respondents referred to automated royalties through smart contracts, which may ensure that the people who were involved in the creative process get their fair share and split up the money that is earned with an NFT. This way, labels could – at least potentially – be completely surpassed in revenue made from all things music-related, ranging from recorded music NFTs to NFTs that come with merchandising, and NFTs that provide access to live performances (Marshall, 2013).

Third, given the novelty of Web3, respondents highlighted how sharing information about NFTs and Web3 in general gave them ‘the chance to collaborate with people from around the world that [they] would have never otherwise met’ [Lauren, F, pop and EDM]. Successfully engaging in Web3 gave relatively unrecognized musicians such as Luca [M, indie pop] access to a whole range of potential collaborators. He, for example, commented that ‘[he] got to write songs with one of Eminem's producers in Miami recently, and [this producer] is so successful that he would not have been interested in Web2 [collaborations]’. The buzz generated by Luca's Web3 presence spilled over to Web2 networks, providing him access to hitherto inaccessible collaborations. In other words, Luca's social capital as well as his symbolic capital as a recognized creator in Web3 helped to create further network opportunities, which could be converted into long-term economic profits (Scott, 2012).

As a result, respondents felt that the Web2 (i.e., social networking and user generated content oriented) market is saturated, making it hard for makers to stand out and reach fans. Lisa [F, electronic soul], for example, mentioned: ‘when you know that you are going to make something, and you have no idea how it is gonna be received on Spotify… it is a bit demotivating’. Web3, according to the respondents, gave musicians the opportunity to see the real value of their piece of art. For example, Luca [M, indie pop] emphasized that ‘when I used to record, I would not expect to make a return on my investment in the production and the recording. And now I can, which is a beautiful thing’. This value is partially social and artistic, ensuring that their music finds its audience, but also economic. Liam [M, electronic dance] explained: ‘Everyone is interested to try to figure out a model that compensates artists more fairly… People are just used to getting music basically for free’.

‘Making your own rules’: Pursuing artistic autonomy

Nevertheless, despite their self-perceived increased financial autonomy, very few respondents made substantial financial profits from NFTs. Though most felt that NFTs could be financially rewarding in the future, currently, none were able to obtain the promises of Web3 they voiced above at the time of the interviews. Yet, all still felt positive about continuing their Web3 journey. Indeed, an even more prominent motivation for minting and selling NFTs was achieving more artistic autonomy.

As already touched upon above, with NFTs, musicians can release their music directly to their audiences, bypassing conventional intermediaries and gatekeepers. This did not only potentially help them to retain financial autonomy, but also to obtain more creative agency. In the words of Monique [F, pop music]: ‘the power that the artist gets to decide. This unity is worth so much money’. Respondents felt that they could focus more on creating 'epic' music. Where Web2 reaches mass audiences, Web3 musicians create music for a smaller audience. Therefore, they felt they could be as creative as they wanted, or, again to quote Monique [F, pop music]: ‘putting out the weirdest thing I can think of’. This also reflects in how Dave [M, indie Pop] articulated his sense of increased autonomy: ‘it does not matter what the genre is, it just matters that you know how a fan is receiving your music. It just means making your own rules’. This kind of creativity was not directed by a label or management team, which gave respondents the feeling that they had strengthened their own creative autonomy.

Respondents, for example, argued that they felt restrained by having to follow certain guidelines to attract people to their new releases, to get into Spotify playlists, or to crack the algorithms more generally. Dave [M, indie pop] explained feeling trapped in the music industry and said: ‘the music industry, I think, is broken because of those models that have been existing and perpetuated, and this [NFTs] provides us a potential way out of that’. The novelty of Web3, they felt, loosened the grip of existing conventions (Becker, 1982), and opened space for creativity and experimentation. Lauren [F, pop and EDM] added that Web3 ‘allows me to express my creativity in different ways, like not just through my singing, but also through the […] design of the actual NFTs, the marketing kind of aspects’. The newness of this field at the crossroads of Web3 and music, therefore, allowed participants to diverge from existing rules governing the settled field of music production, and shape new understandings and artistic conventions (cf. Fligstein and McAdam, 2012).

‘From mass to niche’: Changing business models

The preceding section already foregrounded novel strategies used by musicians, including making the most of the emergent Web3 community. Here, we further unpack such career strategies, especially in relation to entrepreneurship and DIY attitudes. Respondents highlighted three main strategies: (1) investing and reinvesting, (2) narrowing audiences, and (3) broadening values.

First, respondents used the (often limited) profits of NFT sales specifically to fund their careers. Lauren [F, pop and EDM], for example, said that: ‘well, first of all, it does give me money, which allows me to […] reinvest into my music and grow as an artist’. Respondents explained that they often started from an economically constrained position and reinvested their economic capital to build their careers (Scott, 2012), for example by buying equipment. This again underlines the widely shared belief that (especially independent) musicians value artistic growth and autonomy more than making money (Klein et al., 2017).

Second, as already shown in the preceding section, the overall business model transformed from mass to niche. Engaging in the Web3 community was for many musicians a form of relational labor described by Baym (2018), building and maintaining connections with alternative communities and online audiences. The intricate relationship between economic support and social relations clearly spoke from Mitchell's [M, alternative pop] remarks: ‘it is the community that is gonna build your career’. This goes beyond engaging with followers and fans on social media, as the decentralized principle of blockchain technology connects NFTs to individual, specific persons (Rennie et al., 2022). Hence, musicians are better able to connect with their fans as they can trace the person who bought their NFT, easing the development of long-term relationships with audiences (Baym, 2018).

Moreover, given that selling NFTs allowed musicians to make a significant profit from only a small number of dedicated fans, the need to appeal to a large audience was reduced. Liam [M, electronic dance] described this the following way: ‘I try not to make music for a Spotify playlist or, you know, for the radio; I try to just make something because I think it is special and like cool, and then worry about all that afterwards’. By releasing music NFTs, musicians can create music that goes beyond the typical love pop songs, and Luca [M, indie pop] added: ‘I can really record my work, with fewer limitations, which is really powerful as a creator’. Having to reach a niche instead of mass, Dave [M, indie pop] felt that he was better able to ‘push the creative conversation and human conversation’ about different topics to foster, for example, political awareness among his listeners. Again, this shows that respondents’ strategies focused on ways to become more autonomous and authentic.

Third, respondents believed that NFTs broadened the value of their products and strategized to monetize this. For many years, critics have argued that streaming decreases listeners’ connection to artists, meaning that some of the broader aesthetics of music production have dissipated, such as the concept of the album, (cover) art, and booklets (Hesmondhalgh, 2021b). Respondents found in NFTs new ways to reconnect audiences to these values, such as Noah [M, alternative rock], who narrated that ‘[in the past] I was buying tapes and CDs, and there was that feeling of, you know, ownership and just a little deeper connection with the artists and the music that you were into’. By attaching other values to an NFT, musicians can potentially sell a more unique product or even an experience, attracting dedicated audiences that are willing to invest in the artist (Baym, 2018). Nevertheless, having to interact with an audience that grew up with an abundance of streaming services, the next generation of artists needs to fathom ‘what it is that people would value enough that they would want to pay more than what they are paying now?’ [Liam, M, electronic dance]. The respondents currently strategized such forms of ‘value attachment’ primarily through the conventional formula of linking ‘tangible’ goods such as T-shirts or vinyl to buying NFTs, or giving ‘two tickets to any show that we play in your area with no expiration’ [Dave, M, indie pop].

These strategies and perceived opportunities raise questions about the broader sense of entrepreneurship. Contrary to what Haynes and Marshall (2018b) observe, our respondents had no issues with presenting themselves as entrepreneurs, with some even emphasizing that they were ‘100%; I am an entrepreneur’ [Lauren, F, pop and EDM]. This especially came to the fore when discussing the entrepreneurial qualities required for implementing new business models, such as leadership skills, autonomy, and being able to develop new combinations of existing styles (Peterson and Berger, 1971; Swedberg, 2006). Especially leadership stood out here, which for many respondents resonated with the experience of being ‘in control’. Lisa [F, electronic soul], for example, explained that ‘you have to be making all these executive decisions alone based on your research and seeing how other artists are doing it. You know, it means wearing so many hats’. In this view, selling NFTs is another tool in the broader toolkit of DIY music entrepreneurs; a tool that potentially generates additional revenue, but in practice, it seems to be primarily legitimized by connecting NFTs to the pursuit of autonomous creation by cutting out intermediaries (Negus, 1995, 2002).

Conclusion

Taking the dearth of current knowledge on how musicians experience the emerging phenomena of blockchain and NFTs as a starting point, this paper sought to gain a better understanding of how musicians include minting and selling their songs as NFTs in their broader scope of practices, and how this affected their career outlooks. Especially from the perspective of musicians, this terrain is hardly trodden. By interviewing 14 musicians who sold their music as NFTs, we showed how NFTs might – on paper – provide financial opportunities, but – in practice – are better understood as a DIY practice. We presented two main motivations for engaging with NFTs: commercial autonomy from gatekeepers and platforms, and artistic autonomy. Ownership and interest in new technologies as motivations were voiced much less often. This contradicts existing research, which particularly emphasizes the affordances of different ownership structures (Ankenman, 2023).

Commercial autonomy was first expressed by juxtaposing the payout rates of streaming platforms with NFT sales, which the respondents perceived as fairer. Second, they leveraged autonomy by ‘cutting out’ the middlemen that took a share of the revenues. Third, indirectly, presence on Web3 and knowledge of blockchain technology facilitated access to more profitable collaborations (cf. the processes of capital conversion in music outlined by Scott, 2012), showing that generating buzz and constructing oneself as a subject of value (Skeggs, 2004) continues to be a prevailing strategy of musicians. Artistic autonomy was mainly observed as a result of music NFTs being part of an ‘emerging field’ (cf. Fligstein and McAdam, 2012) without settled conventions (Becker, 1982), and of the possibility to build a career by engaging with a small, dedicated community (Baym, 2018).

Our results also show that, though the respondents might be less reluctant to position themselves as entrepreneurs compared to the indie musicians studied by Haynes and Marshall (2018b), the disposition that autonomy prevails above all other values has remained strong. As a result, this study continues the long line of research on entrepreneurial practices in music, showing that, though discursively rejected (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b), such practices are firmly ingrained in the DIY ethos of musicians operating outside of the mainstream. This way, this research fosters our understanding of DIY practices in the age of Web3. These contemporary DIY practices emerge from ‘the need to garner a sustainable lifestyle without the formerly taken-for-granted notions of a stable career and, more importantly, stable income’ (Bennett, 2018: 146; see also Guerra, 2021), but also encompass the much older and traditional DIY-ethos of independent creativity. This traditional ethos was articulated in the ‘DIY era’ of the 1970s and 1980s primarily through the rejection of the grand stadium rock bands dominating music production and consumption (see Bennett, 2018; Laing, 1985). With this study's DIY practices manifesting primarily in the rejection of the aesthetics pushed by contemporary music distribution models (i.e., reaching mass audiences through streaming services), we show that even within new, deeply financially oriented (crypto) markets, the traditional DIY ethos remains fundamental.

To conclude, musicians foregrounded the discourse of autonomy (from intermediaries) and authenticity (to break free from their self-perceived Spotify-algorithm prisons) to explain their investments in blockchain technology. Thus, in line with Bourdieu's (1983) classic idea of a reversed economic world, the respondents did not claim selling NFTs of their songs for the sake of making (more) money, but rather in terms related to creative autonomy and independence from existing intermediaries – from platforms to labels. Nevertheless, though the interviewed musicians celebrated the means to cut out intermediaries, and as such felt as if they had more freedom for artistic creation, they seemed to avoid considering NFT trading platforms and the built-in mechanisms of the blockchain as potential new intermediaries. Given that the crypto-world is still very much in flux and institutionalization is still in progress, future consolidation will probably crystallize a set of aesthetic conventions and practices (Van der Laan and Kuipers, 2016).

This way, beyond the observation of the current NFT market collapse, this paper nuances the overly optimistic view that blockchain technology is engendering fundamental change in the creative industries at large, and the music industry in particular. At this point, very few musicians are able to claim financial success based on their NFT sales. Instead, they highlight how embarking on this NFT journey has been a time-consuming effort. This indicates that Web3 musicians are still relying on different sources of income, with NFTs being a complementary piece of the pie at best. Yet, it also shows that NFTs probably do little to leverage more time to actually make music, vis-à-vis more commercial, ‘humdrum’ activities (Caves, 2000; Everts, 2022). Finally, though the opportunity for direct (financial) engagement with audiences may reinvoke sentiments of music patronage and aristocratic sponsorship (cf. DeNora, 1991; Van den Braber, 2021), a stronger dependency on the market may do little to foster autonomy.

Though financial opportunities clearly motivated musicians, and the opportunities created by these technologies facilitate different ways of reaching and mobilizing audiences, the dispositions of makers – autonomy-oriented, eschewing an explicit pursuit of financial gain (Scott, 2012) – shape the usage of these technologies. Partly, this can be explained by the pioneering role of this study's respondents, as well as the relatively small sample. Future research could, for example, compare different genres, especially considering the discrepancy between most of the extant literature – which focuses primarily on musicians in the alternative rock scene – and the reality of the NFT trade in the music industry, which seems to be especially prevalent in e.g., electronic music and mainstream pop music. In a similar vein, future research could focus on comparing different career stages, or draw comparisons between musicians who are active in Web3, and those who avoid engaging with new technologies.

Finally, the successes of NFTs and blockchain in general are at best built on shaky foundations. Recently, concerns have been raised about speculation and fraud associated with the trading of NFTs (Chalmers et al., 2022), and the limited protection of makers, whose work is virtually free to be commodified by others (Beckett, 2022). Moreover, the NFT market has so far not lived up to its expectations, and plummeted in the past year (Yang, 2023). Though this discussion goes beyond the scope of this paper, future research may want to do longitudinal studies to capture the more long-term experiences and successes (or lack thereof) of musicians who are pioneering in an emergent, and potentially also receding field.