I must lay my cards on the table from the onset. I am in support of Thom Yorke's decision to remove his catalogue from Spotify and am dismayed at the reaction of many key industry figures. It's no wonder the conversation is stunted, when one of the world's biggest musicians is chastised for speaking out for those with less prominent voices.

For a big proportion of my career (I'm currently finishing my sixth album), physical sales have been in decline while streaming plays have grown exponentially. I have met many fans over the years who are proud to find and listen to music on Spotify. They are under the impression that their subscription fees are helping to support us and that the ever-growing catalogue they enjoy is due to their subscriptions. But music fans have been sold a lie.

To give you an example, 4,685 Spotify plays of my last solo album equated to £19.22 (that's 0.004p per album stream). The equivalent to me selling two albums at a show. I think it's fair to say that at least two of those almost 5,000 listeners would have bought the album from me if they knew the financial disparity from streaming. At the same time, many record labels are reaping the rewards of online streaming, whether it be through potential share dividends when a company gets sold or the "money for old rope" practice of repackaging music.

I don't blame the consumer for this problem: it is unfair to criticise those who opted out of torrenting to replace it with legal subscription streaming. Rather, I believe the problem lies in the rhetoric of the industry and its reluctance to debate the facts. Unless those higher up in the industry are prepared to acknowledge the disparity between the commercial success of Spotify and the royalty rates paid to artists, the outlook for smaller musicians will remain bleak.