The value in recorded music isn't, and shouldn't be, set by the artist. The natural tendency of any artist is to overvalue their product. New artists have to face a reality, that if they enter the music business to get rich, they may not, in fact, even earn a living. That is not the consumer of musics fault. If earning a living is their goal there are plenty of ways to achieve that. If they do it for the artistry, then their products popularity should be compensation enough.
Technology has made distribution to the masses efficient. So if your work is mildly popular or less you are very under paid for your work.
If your work is popular you are way overpaid for your efforts.
Taylor Swift is a hypocrite for complaining about Sony's music give away. 1. She has benefited handsomely from her music sales, she should be the last one complaining. 2. Taylor should want the not so popular musicians to quit, so less competition with her.
Technology is doing the same thing for lawyers and other professions: The elite on top with the pack far behind. Just like
pro sports. Because the very best have access to the mass market, only the very best compete. Taylor is not losing a dime on this deal, she is just not smart enough to see that Bill Gates did the same thing by giving away free OS licensing to make Microsoft the OS of choice.
She wins big time for her touring and marketing deals.
Recording artists in our culture are seriously overpaid and they music is not worthy of the talent they show. It's obvious that most singers can't really sing and can't actually perform an entire song without help of a studio. Out auto tuned culture gives fat checks to stars who really are not talented (and will be forgotten tomorrow.)
Most artists make under $10 per year from streaming networks. Labels do not pay artists. If you think they do then stop living in the past. The only money artists really make is from touring, which mostly goes to the record label to pay it back for paying for their albums to be recorded and produced. The money is never actually enough and most artists get seriously in debt and have to continue on a cycle of making albums and touring to try to get out of debt but never actually can.
I do not believe that today's recording artists are overpaid. The artists produce a product, that if popular enough, the public will purchase in large quantities. Each individual purchase is not for an overwhelming amount of money. It's only when large quantities of the artists products are purchased that the amount of money becomes huge. Artists should not be punished by having their rates lowered simply because their music is popular. It's all fair.
I don't agree that today's musicians are overpaid for the music they produce. It may seem that they are earning more when we compare them with some of the famous musicians from the past, but things have changed dramatically. Today you can be famous for one day, and after one album you may be done and never get back on track again. Due to the high piracy, people rarely buy albums/cd's so musicians are becoming more like a brand and not being known for their music. Times have changed, so I believe that they earn what they deserve.
Musicians are not overpaid. I think having to be in the public eye is a huge problem privacy-wise and anyone who has to deal with that should be paid for their troubles. In addition, people who can play instruments or sing for millions of people are earning money per person. So it adds up and it is worth it.