From politicians to pop stars, it does not take much digging to find shining examples of business men and women in the media. Although public view would suggest corruption and greed are synonymous with politicians, it is always disappointing to find them at the foundations of those who refer to themselves as artists. Corporate Pop Star Taylor Swift created a light stir within the music community during her debacle with Spotify back in 2014. At the time, Swift would not allow the free music streaming site to post her album 1989 which had just been released. She claimed that, as an artist, she could not “contribute her life’s work to an experiment that does not fairly compensate the writers, producers, artists and creators,” proving that art and accessibility are directly linked with monetary value.

On one hand, this ideology raises the fair point that artists deserve to be compensated for their cultural influence. But contrasting this opinion introduces the classicism that is an illusion to prevent change. For this message still only benefits the artists that hold the influence, and not the taken-advantage-of-under-valued-never-heard-of type. This message Swift brands was heard, but the benefits spill only into the deep pockets of those who already have it (her). Perhaps this stand against the man doesn’t intend to bring attention to poor artists, but shines the light off of stumbling on new competition, as one might find on a site like Spotify, and keeps the Taylor-craze isolated back to her base. It’s smart business playing the righteous card.

It is timely that this complaint comes at the height of her success where people are lining up to give her their earnings in exchange for her time spent. But on a smaller scale, perhaps profit doesn’t normally come from record sales and the music itself. Smaller bands would attest that their main source of income relies on a growing fan base that attends concerts and buys merchandise. So this illusion of creating music for for-profit record sales lags the follow through of sustaining small artists. The luxury of this denial is reserved for the ideological 1% who can attest for exclusivity. But reality has its way to sneak into these martyrdom arguments. The contradiction of greed is that when an artist can afford to be the sacrificial goat, may be they don’t need it.