I’ve got this idea about music. Music is art. But music isn’t valued as highly as art. Is it because music isn’t tangible like a painting? Do we value what we see more than what we hear? A musician can put the same time, expertise and effort into a song that a painter puts into a painting but the painting is instantly valued higher. Music has a lot of potential value as opposed to instant value. Lets say it takes me 3 weeks to write, produce *(£250), mix (£250), master (£200) and promote a song (£1000) costing me almost £2000, I then sell the song on iTunes for 79p (and collect 59p from it) The instant value is only 79p, but if it becomes a hit (That’s a big IF) it can produce royalties and gigs that turn it into £10,000 for example. I just realised I don’t know the process that a painter and their painting go through, nevertheless I’ll continue (artists please paint an accurate scenario for us in the comment section). If a painting takes 3 weeks to complete and £300 was spent on materials. Depending on your PR let’s say the painting then goes for £10,000…immediately. With time it could be could be worth hundreds of thousands. Could a song ever be immediately valued more than just 79p? Who’s gonna buy a song for £100? How do we raise the value of music again in an age of free downloads and streaming. One day I’m gonna sell an album for a £1000, I just need a few appreciators to back it and I’m good. I read this article below, we seem to think alike.