Successful subscription models have unlocked wealth on an eye-watering scale for companies such as Spotify. After a year of rapid growth, the Swedish giant is now worth $60bn. Famous artists such as Dylan can more or less name their price, and investors are benefiting from the most bullish of bull markets. Hipgnosis floated only two years ago, but has already reached a market capitalisation of $1.25bn. The major labels are quids in too. Universal, Sony and Warner were making almost $20m a day even before Covid accelerated the digitalisation of everyday life.

For the poor bloody infantry of the music industry, however, the outlook is very different. As Covid puts paid to the possibility of income from live performances and touring, the sheer inequity of the streaming economy has been thrown into stark relief. Only a small fraction of total revenue makes its way to most artists. And songwriters, as opposed to performers, are at the very bottom of the heap.

Testifying to MPs in the run-up to Christmas, one leading songwriter said that the writers of some of Britain’s biggest hits were struggling to make ends meet. The singer Nadine Shah has also gone public about the dark side of the streaming boom. Ms Shah, who was nominated for the Mercury prize two years ago, revealed to the Guardian that she was making so little money from streaming that she had to move back in with her parents last summer.

The digital-subscription model for consuming music is, of course, a huge improvement on the wild west years. For a while, piracy meant artists’ work was being enjoyed for free. But a new era requires a new deal for those whose creativity is generating such vast sums. It is not fair, for example, for the major labels to treat each play of a song as a sale rather than a broadcast, allowing them to avoid paying out royalties to artists. And efforts should be made to channel more money away from back catalogues to emerging talents, whose best work lies in the future rather than the past.