When someone thinks about the most valuable names in music, the ones that come to mind are probably the top artists at the moment and then the classic artist that everyone knows and loves. That’s why it may be surprising to many people to learn that the Beatles are actually considered less valuable to music streaming services than artists from after 2000 who don’t hold nearly as much significance.

One glaring example of this is a comparison between the Spice Girls and the Beatles. If you ask just about anyone who they like more, they will say the Beatles, but music streaming services charge more for Spice Girls songs. You can create this example with any number of artists, comparing the Rolling Stones to Destiny’s Child, for example, and many others.

Most major streaming services will price songs from this century’s artists higher than they would an artist from the previous century, not because they think one is more valuable than the other but because of what people are willing to pay for their songs. It could be said that most people who want the Beatles’ music already have it, but there is also an argument to be made that those who are buying music these days on streaming platforms are likely to want to buy the songs that they grew up hearing. That would more likely be artists from 2000s on up.

The prices are based on demand, so as an artist gains or loses cultural cache, the market will respond and price their music accordingly. There is also a drive by music labels to popularize older artists and increase their cultural significance and the demand for their music, but these tend to be minimal efforts, since advertising for artists that no longer perform rarely creates enough demand to justify the cost of the advertising. The exception to that is when there is a prestige release happening, such as a premium edition of the Beatles music that was released back in 2018. This was a major event, and fans were willing to shell out the extra money for the remastered and rereleased versions of the songs, many of which they probably already owned in some fashion. At the same time, you would have younger fans or those who knew of the Beatles who took that release as an opportunity to add that music to their library, since they otherwise wouldn’t think too much of buying that band’s music.

But generally speaking, the cultural cache of a more recent artist, even if far less regarded, would be higher than for an older artist. That’s just the way the trends are at the moment, since those spending the most money on music tend to be in their 20s. They are looking for artist that they have personal experience and memories of, and that’s why they are willing to pay more for a lower tier band like the Spice Girls than a prestige mainstay like the Beatles.