The ultimate goal for any musician is to “make it big” by signing with an established label to produce original work that can be heard by the masses.
That’s the dream. Or at least it used to be.
Nowadays, it seems as though the entire music industry revolves around money. The dream of performing, making a social statement or even just being famous doesn’t matter anymore. It’s all about the dollars and cents.
Taylor Swift, with her new album “1989,” is the most recent example of this apparent greed epidemic. Swift decided to not only refrain from releasing her album on Spotify last week, but also remove her entire back catalogue from the growingly popular music-streaming site.
Why would the supposedly sweet, “girl next door” of the music industry do such a thing? The money, of course. She wants to boost record sales, even though “1989” is projected to sell a little over 1.3 million copies, the most since Eminem’s release of “The Eminem Show” in 2002.
While there is nothing wrong with an artist getting paid for his or her work, this is just a slight slap in the face to Swift followers everywhere. Not to say that “1989” is not a good album, but it is clear that she has no respect
for one of the major sources of her success: the fans.
Famous artists make enough money as it is, and they should not take for granted the position that they are lucky enough to find themselves in. Being an artist is a privilege, and being able to share art to millions of people around the world is a gift that other unknown artists would kill for.
Swift seems to think that her music is an example of such incredible art that it is worth all the money she is trying to squeeze from it, and the only way to measure art is in its monetary value.
“Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for,” Swift said in a Wall Street Journal opinion article. “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.”
She’s right. Music is art, and it is rare and beautiful. But, there are other ways to measure the power of music besides by the “price point.” Tide laundry detergent, for example, is around $20, but Tide doesn’t make you feel genuine emotions.
Music, and any art for that matter, should be respected for its true worth and not cheapened by a price value.
According to David Holmes, an editor for tech publication PandoDaily, Swift removing her content from Spotify will not even have any significant impact on her record sales.
The nature of the music business is changing, and artists should learn to change with it instead of pouting over the minute decrease in their otherwise colossal good fortune. In fact, CDs are evolving into collector’s items for a younger, streaming generation.
“We’ve passed the tipping point. We’re moving to a streaming economy,” said Joe Levy, editor of Billboard magazine, in a “Today” interview. “The actions of one artist aren’t going to change that for the overall picture.”
The simple fact of the matter is not everyone can afford to buy an album every month, so streaming allows everyone an equal opportunity to consume new music.
So should art be only for those who can afford it?
While this is not the case for all, some musicians need to humble themselves and recall the days they spent building callus from hours of guitar picking or singing their sure-to-be brilliant work to an audience made up of various shampoos and conditioners in an arena that resides in the bathroom.
Great music is a rare gift that should not be owned but rather celebrated.
Michael Tarver is a 20-year-old mass communication junior from Houma, Louisiana. You can reach him on Twitter @michael_T16.