Well, it could mean a couple of things:
1. The blockchain is used for recording the transactions, but at the end of the month some "real" money is still transferred to the artist. In that case, there seems to be little advantage of blockchain over, say, a database or log. "This song was played X times, and hence your payment is Y".
2. The actual "money" being transferred to the artist is in the form of blockchain credits - à la bitcoin. This has huge problems, one being the massive variability of its value in real terms, and another being the high transaction costs. Neither of these benefits the artist.
You mention traceability. Were they suggesting that each individual "play" event was stored on a blockchain, where the music player apps themselves participate directly in the blockchain? The cost of electricity alone wipes out any chance of the artist receiving any money; and the massive concurrency (millions of people all playing tracks at the same time) makes consensus almost impossible.
Surely what you want is: player sends an event to central database, saying "I played this track". Of course, it's possible to game this system by sending fake play events - but you could equally game the system if you were directly adding events to a blockchain. You use standard fraud detection techniques to detect this. The difference is, with a database the fake events can be identified and removed. In the blockchain, they live forever.