| > Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. the rarity is not the source of the value, but an amplifier for the value in a market driven society > It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art. does she understand privilege? she's a music slaver, she's advocating that music remain a limited experience accessible for a few. I have a HUGE problem with this. this is, in my view, an energetic interaction centered about value, perceived value, and measured value. i could say more but i rant... something something digital assets can be copied for free let's not let a scarcity mentality ruin this for all. finally, what she really sells in her shows has real value, the scarcity is her physical existence, this is NOT THE SOURCE OF VALUE. the energy/money dynamics are a form of power. edit: I echo this sentiment: "Sad to see generations grow up on music being a spectator sport and not a communal, participatory activity". but notice how this huge Taylor mega shows ARE a communal activity. Dancing is the main avenue for communal musical participation |
She's advocating that artists get paid for their work and not sell themselves short. Whatever means our society permits that allows artists to capture the value of their work should be taken. If you want music to be "open access" and effectively patronage that's fine but it doesn't change her point.
We're in a golden era right now where the art itself is so cheap it might as well be free and paid for by scarce goods sold to fans who can afford them. If you squint it's almost pay-what-you-want. My $10/mo Spotify subscription cost me $0.00002/hr last year.