The money related condition looks something like this:
1 painting = $37 million
1 melody = $.99
Some of the time individuals state that a tune can change the art gallery, yet nobody ever says that regarding works of art. So hypothetically, if individuals need change $.99 is the value we should pay for it.
Presently here are a couple of articulations that should enable us to clear up what the money related or esteem inconsistency among painting and music depends on.
(1) There are less painters than there are performers.
(2) Musicians are less gifted than painters?
(3) It is simpler to make music than it is to paint.
(4) The open qualities works of art more than music.
(5) Paintings are more lovely than music.
(6) Paintings are difficult to duplicate not at all like music.
(7) Painters work more enthusiastically than artists and writers.
(8) Blah, blah, blah.
Scarcely anybody concurs with these announcements but all, or if nothing else some of them, would need to be valid all together at the cost of works of art to so extraordinarily surpass the expense of music. In addition, I question that art gatherers and extraordinary painters need to manage as much lawful formality as do artists while discharging their work into the open area, so for what reason aren’t the prizes break even with, if not more prominent for performers who need to work nearly as much ensuring their work as in delivering it. Performers and authors, be that as it may, really should accomplish more than validate their work and get precise examinations concerning what their work is worth, however they get saved money. The gear costs alone for performers is a lot higher than it is for painters.