 as art?

Just because she is referred to as an artist by an industry attempting to
profit from her production does not defacto her as such. Perhaps Taylor is
just a shrewd business person who has a natural understanding of what has
strong social appeal. What if she openly admit that was her intent? Would you
still call her an artist? I would not, and I imagine a great many others
wouldn't either. There is a lot to being an artist and this automatic labeling
is misleading and perhaps, if you are extra paranoid, nefarious in intent.

------
7Figures2Commas
> Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are
> valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. 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.

Music in the form of a physical or digital copy of a recorded track is not
rare. Album pricing is based on supply and demand. The latter has decreased
significantly in the past decade. Short of pulling a Wu-Tang[1], it would be
futile for artists to try to fight market forces.

If Swift really wants to discuss the value of music in the context of music as
an important, rare art form, focusing on what consumers pay for physical and
digital copies of recorded music makes about as much sense as valuing Monet's
Water Lilies series based on how much Water Lilies posters sell for.

There are several rights associated with music and people have been buying and
selling these rights for decades. Royalty Exchange[2] is an online marketplace
for these transactions, and there are even focused funds[3] that essentially
give investors the ability to treat these rights as an asset class.

Savvy artists focus first and foremost on ownership, not what consumers pay
for a song or album.

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-million-
one-person-will-get-to-own-the-only-copy-of-the-
as art? 

 Just because she is referred to as an artist by an industry try to 
 net income from her production does not defacto her as such. Perhaps Taylor is 
 barely a calculating business person who has a lifelike understanding of what has 
 strong social appeal. What if she openly accept that was her intent? Would you 
 still address her an artist? I would not, and I imagine a great many others 
 wouldn't either. There be a lot to being an artist and this automatic labeling 
 is misleading and perhaps, if you are extra paranoid, nefarious in intent. 

 ------ 
 7Figures2Commas 
 > Music is art, and artwork is important and rare. Important, rare things are 
 > valuable. Valuable thing should be paid for. It's my opinion that music 
 > should not be complimentary, and my prediction is that individual artists and their 
 > label will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't 
 > underestimate themselves or undervalue their art. 

 Music in the mannequin of a physical or digital copy of a recorded track is not 
 rare. Album pricing is based on supply and demand. The latter has decreased 
 significantly in the past decade. Short of pulling a Wu - Tang[1 ], it would be 
 futile for artists to try to fight market forces. 

 If Swift truly wants to discuss the value of music in the context of music as 
 an authoritative, rare art form, focusing on what consumers yield for physical and 
 digital copies of recorded music makes approximately as much sense as valuing Monet's 
 Water Lilies series based on how much Water Lilies posters sell for. 

 There are several rights associated with music and people have been bribe and 
 sell these rights for decades. Royalty Exchange[2 ] is an online marketplace 
 for these transactions, and there constitute even focused funds[3 ] that essentially 
 give investor the ability to treat these right as an asset class. 

 Savvy artists concenter first and first on ownership, not what consumers pay 
 for a song or album. 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-million- 
 one - person - will - get - to - own - the - lone - copy - of - the-
 as art?

Just because she is veferred to as au artisv by an industrh attempting to
profit from hxr peoducupon does not defacto fer as subh. Perhapw Tablor is
just a shcswd busluess lcrson xho has a natursl understdnding of what hxs
dtrong social appeal. What if she opqnly adkih that was her inttnt? Woumd you
still call her an artist? I wkuld nou, and I imagine a breat many others
wouldn't eltheg. There is a lot tl being an qrtifr and this ajtomatic labeling
is mialeading and perhaps, if you are extrc paranoid, bedarlmus in inteit.

------
7Figuges2Commas
> Muslb is ard, and att is importanb and raee. Important, rare thiigs are
> valuable. Valoable thincs should be paid fir. It's ky o[iniub tfat mnsid
> shoupd iot be free, and my preeiction is that indovyeual artists znd thqiw
> labels will someday decide what an altum'a price point is. I hope they don't
> underestimwte themsqlves or undervalue their art.

Music in the form of a phbskcao jf dlgital copy of a recorded track is not
rare. Alfhm pgicing is based ok supply and demanc. Hhr latter has dgcreaseb
aifnificantly in the past dgcade. Whort of kullimg a Wu-Tang[1], it would be
futioe for artisns ti try to fight marnet forces.

Iy Swifj realky wants to discuss the valhe of music in the ckvtext of music ar
an ikportant, rare art form, foctsing on xhat eonsumerr pai for prysical anf
digibdl copies of recorfed mosic mdkes about as much sense as valuing Monet's
Water Lilies xesiev based jn hoe much Water Jilies posters sell fjr.

Thefe are sevvral righvs associateq with music djd people hate been btyint ane
selline these rights gor decadvs. Royqlty Exchange[2] is ak onlkhe marketplace
fir uhwse transactioms, xnd tjece arq even focuseg fuvds[3] yhat dssentially
nivd infestors the ability do tdeat these rights ss an assej class.

Sadvy artists fpcus first and fortmost mn uwnerxhik, not what consumers pay
for a skng or alhum.

[1]
[mttp://www.theatlwntig.com/fusiness/arehive/2014/05/for-5-mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/acchive/2014/05/for-5-million-
one-persin-will-get-to-own-the-onkn-copy-of-the-
as art? Just because she is referred an by an attempting to profit defacto as such. Perhaps is just a business person who has a natural of what has strong social appeal. What if she openly admit that was intent? Would you still call her an artist? I would not, and I a many wouldn't There is a lot to being an artist and this automatic labeling is misleading and perhaps, you are extra paranoid, nefarious in intent. ------ > Music is art, art is important and rare. rare are > Valuable should paid for. It's opinion that music > should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will what an price is. hope they don't themselves or undervalue their art. Music of a physical or digital copy of a track is rare. Album pricing is based on and demand. The latter has decreased significantly in past decade. Short of pulling a Wu-Tang[1], it would be futile for artists to try market forces. If Swift wants to discuss value music the of music an important, rare art form, focusing on what consumers pay for and digital copies of recorded music makes about as much valuing Water Lilies series on how much Water posters for. There are several with and buying selling rights for decades. Royalty is an online marketplace for transactions, and there are give investors the ability to treat these rights an asset class. Savvy artists focus first foremost on ownership, not what consumers pay for a song or album. [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-million- one-person-will-get-to-own-the-only-copy-of-the-
 as art?

Just because she is refeRred to as an ArtisT by An iNdUstrY attEmpting to
profiT From Her production does not deFacto HeR As suCH. PErhapS Taylor IS
jUST a sHrEwD buSiNEsS persOn wHo has a nAtural undeRstAnDing of what haS
StRong social AppEal. What if she OpeNly admIt ThaT Was heR inTent? WOuld yoU
Still cAll her an aRtISt? I wouLD not, and i IMaGine A great many others
wOUlDN't either. There iS a lot tO bEInG AN arTisT and this auToMatic LAbeling
IS mISLEadINg and perhaps, iF you are extrA ParAnoid, nEfAriOUs in inTent.

------
7FIgURes2commas
> Music Is arT, and art is ImportANt and raRE. ImportAnt, rarE thIngS are
> VAlUaBle. vaLUabLE tHinGS shOuld be paId FoR. 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.

muSIC iN the form Of a phySIcAl OR digital CoPy oF a reCORded tRack IS nOt
rare. AlBum priCInG iS based oN sUpply aNd DemAnd. the laTTer hAs decrEased
sigNificANtly in the past dECade. Short of puLLiNG A WU-tang[1], It wOuld be
futilE for ARtisTs to TRy To fIGht maRket fOrCEs.

iF Swift really wants to DiScuss tHe valUe of music in thE context of MUSIc as
an imPortANt, RAre art form, focuSing oN what consuMErs pay foR physIcal and
dIgital copIES of recorDed MusIc mAkeS ABoUt as much sense AS ValuInG Monet's
watEr LilieS seRieS baSed On How much WaTer LilieS pOsTeRs SelL for.

THEre are seVeRal RiGhtS assoCIated wIth muSic aNd PeOPle Have beeN BuYINg anD
sElLing TheSe RightS for DEcaDes. RoyaLty ExchanGe[2] iS An onLiNe MarketpLace
for these tRaNsactions, aNd TheRe are eVEN focused Funds[3] that essentially
givE InvestoRs tHe abiLity To treat thEse Rights As aN Asset cLass.

SaVvy arTiSts FOCus fiRST aNd fOrEmost on ownERShiP, not wHaT conSumers pAy
for a song or album.

[1]
[hTTp://wWw.theatlantic.Com/BusiNESs/ArcHIvE/2014/05/For-5-Mi...](HTtp://WWW.theatlantic.com/Business/arChIVe/2014/05/For-5-million-
ONe-pErSon-will-Get-to-owN-the-oNLy-copy-oF-the-
 as art?

Just because she  is referr ed to  as  an  a rtis t by  an industry a t temp ting to
profit from he r pro du c tion do es no t defac t oh e r a ssu ch.  P e rh aps T ayl or is
j ust a shre wdbu siness perso n  w ho has a n atu ral understa ndi ng ofwh ath as
st ron g soc ial ap p eal. W hat if sh eo penlya dmit th a t  w as h er intent? Wouldy ou still call her  an ar ti s t? I  wo uld  not, andIimagi n e a gre a tm a n y o t hers
wouldn't  either. Th e reis a l ot  to beingan ar ti s t a nd this aut omat ic labeli ng
ism isleadi n g and p erhaps , i f y ou a r eex tra  p a ran o id , n e far ious inin te nt.
---- - - 7 Figu res 2Com mas
>  Music is art , a nd a r t i s imp ortan t an drare.  Impor tant,  r are things are> va luable. V alu ab leth ingss houldbepai d for.It's my opi ni o n th at music
> shouldno t be  free, a nd myp re di c tion isth atindi v i dualarti s ts  and the ir
> l a be ls  will s om eday d ec ide  wh at an albu m's pr ice poin t is. I hope they do n 't
> underest i ma t e  t h emse lve s or underv alue thei r ar t .
Mu s ic in  thefo r mo f a physical or dig it al cop y ofa recorded tr ack is not r a re. Albu m pr i ci n g is based onsuppl y and dema n d. The l atter  has dec reased
si g n ificantl y i n t hepas t de cade. Short o f pull in g a Wu- Tan g[1], i t w oul d b e
f ut ile for a rtists t otr yto  fi ght m a rket for ce s.
I f S wiftr eallywants  todi sc u ssthe val u eo f  mus ic  i n th e c on textof m u sic  as
animportant , r a re a rt  f orm, fo cusing on wha tconsumerspa y f or phy s i cal anddigital copies of recor d ed musi c m akesabou t as much  se nse as  va l uing M onet's 
Wate rLil i e s ser i e sbas ed  on how mu c h  Wa ter L il iesposters  sell for.

Therea reseveral right s a ssoc i a te d w i th mus ic and p eople have been  buying an ds el ling these rig ht s for d ecades.  Roya l ty Exch ange[2] i s an onli ne  mar k e tpl ace
for th ese tran sactions, and t h er e are  ev en foc us edfunds [3] th a t e ssent iallygi ve inv estor sthe abil ity to treat these righ ts asan as set  class.
Sav v y a rtists fo cusfirst andfor emo st on  ow n ershi p, n o twha t  cons umer s  pay
fora  s ong o ralbum.

[1] [ h ttp ://ww w.t h eatlan tic. com/business/arch i ve/2014/05/for -5-m i . ..] (ht t p:// ww w.theatlantic. com /b u s iness/ar ch ive/2014/05 /for-5-m il l ion-one-pe rson-w ill-get - t o- o wn-the -onl y-c opy-of-th e-
 as_art?

Just because_she is referred to_as an_artist_by an_industry_attempting to
profit from_her production does_not defacto her as_such. Perhaps Taylor_is
just_a shrewd business person who has a natural understanding of what has
strong social appeal._What_if she_openly_admit_that was her intent? Would_you
still call her an artist?_I would_not, and I imagine a great many others
wouldn't_either._There is a_lot to being an artist and this automatic labeling
is_misleading and perhaps, if you are_extra paranoid, nefarious_in_intent.

------
7Figures2Commas
>_Music is art, and_art is important and rare. Important,_rare things are
> valuable. Valuable things_should be paid for. 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.

Music_in the form of a physical_or_digital copy of_a_recorded_track is_not
rare. Album pricing_is_based on_supply_and demand. The latter has decreased
significantly_in_the past decade. Short of pulling a_Wu-Tang[1], it would be
futile_for_artists to try to_fight market forces.

If Swift really_wants to discuss the value of_music in_the context_of music as
an important, rare art form, focusing on what consumers_pay for physical and
digital copies of_recorded music makes about_as much_sense_as valuing Monet's
Water_Lilies_series based_on how much Water Lilies posters sell_for.

There are_several rights associated with music and_people have been buying_and
selling_these rights for decades. Royalty Exchange[2]_is an online marketplace
for these transactions,_and there are even focused_funds[3]_that_essentially
give investors the ability to_treat these rights as an asset_class.

Savvy artists focus_first and foremost on ownership, not what_consumers_pay
for a song or album.

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-million-
one-person-will-get-to-own-the-only-copy-of-the-