People still seem to be stuck quantifying the value of music (sales, streams, etc) against a time when there was less saturation and the actual cost of producing, marketing and distributing music was much higher.
Well yes, because that was a time when musicians could earn a living. It's legitimate to question the current situation.
Apparently almost no music artists could earn a living previously — the only musician who could were union symphony employees, studio musicians, and the very very few who cracked into the charts.
I suspect what we’re seeing in articles such as this are people who believe they should be traveling the world partying in castles with supermodels, and sadly I think for a small to mid popular group, this is just as unrealistic now as it has ever been.
My dad talks about him and his friend’s bands in their teens, 20s, and 30s and how playing their music actually cost them money when equipment, practice space, and traveling expenses were considered. Back then most would have killed to have a small middle class income to play music. Now it seems there are many tiny bands who between streaming, the audience they can generate online, and aggressive touring, they can make a modest living which unfortunately and fortunately, in our current iteration of capitalism is a win of some kind.