I mean why is it that music is so cheap anyways? A painter can

The art community (drawings etc) is a fucking joke and even some rich ad fuck painters acknowledge it.
There's so much billshit.
Musicians and producers get shat on because "Oh, you don't like the terms? Well there are other producers I can talk to so screw you".

a painter only paints one painting
a painter does not sell digital copies of his painting for thousands of dollars each

Musicians can sell hundreds of thousands of records, plus they also get money from performing live. Painters are fucked in this regard.

It's easy to pirate music, so asking little money for your music is the only way to assure an income.

Comparing an album or song to a painting is a false equivalence. An album or song is more accurately comparable to a print of an artwork. Prints are sold for much less than the painting. The types of paintings that sell for thousands are more comparable to the master tapes of an album, or a first pressing or something.

>>74666106
this is quite stupid

>>74666106
there are many many ways in which the art and music industries operate, which i will not list here because i'm not knowledgable enough about it and it should be easy to find info on google.

just not comparable in the business sense. but in comparing the art itself i don't think thats fair either. who has the right to decide what a piece of art is really worth on a scale of artistry? how is one piece of art more important than another?

there is ALSO the fact that a painting and a song are consumed in very different ways. a painting is very passive, unless you're in some sort of museum with the sole purpose of looking at and thinking about the art. music is a very involved activity, playing or listening to it. you pay attention to it all because that's the point of it. a song can become tiresome to an individual person very quickly and no one wants to pay thousands of dollars for a single album of a few songs you might listen to once or twice.

not a good comparison in the end.

>mfw a lewd artist
>mfw get 50 dollars for a couple of hours of drawing
feels good

>>74666106
The artwork is a one off sale (unless it is a series of artworks or licensed prints but you could compare that to a series of songs, an album, and licensing songs for film, tv and compilations). Recorded music can be sold many times with the profit partially collected by the artist every time whilst an artwork is sold once, any subsequent sale bares no money for the artist

>>74666106
google 'the free market'

>>74666560
>implying western markets are free

>>74666581
like this dick amirite

>>74666106
Wu-Tang Clan made one copy of "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin" and it got sold for $2M. Literally the highest sum ever paid for an album.

Nipsey Hussle sold the first 1000 copies of "Crenshaw" for $100 each - Jay-Z bought 100 copies to show he respects innovation and hustle.

So first, as other Anons pointed out already it' an apples vs. oranges comparison, and second, if you don't like it there are alternative methods.

The types of painters than can actually make money are very very small.
98% of visual artists are destitute and can only make money at best by assuming a fake name and drawing erotic porn on commission (at least the smart ones figure this out) or drawing fan art for fag nerd on tumblr and deivant art

>>74666166
this right here

>>74667934
yes

I don't think you thought about this question nearly as hard as you think you did, frogposter.

>>74666106
I realize you're retarded but only the original painting sells well, it's not mass produced like music so there's an exclusivity that raises the price