This article is part of a face-off: to read the other viewpoint in which Jacob Sanchez thinks Taylor Swift’s albums should be on Spotify, click here. 

The popularity of Taylor Swift’s album “1989” was so instantaneous that Taylor Swift’s music cannot be found on Spotify. She chose to remove her songs from certain streaming services and should be applauded for it.

I am a millennial through and through. I am in the class of college students who are frustrated by expenses on a regular basis and I know my peers think paying for music is so 2005, but I disagree.

I disagree as someone who wants to make a career in the messy world of creating art for a living.

It has value, and as long as our society says value is expressed in money we ought to be paying musicians for their creations.

One of the most common arguments against Swift removing her songs from Spotify is that she has already made so much money and must be greedy if she wants any more. Swift made $64 million in 2014, according to Forbes making her No.18 in the top 100 celebrity earnings for the year.

I do not believe that having already made millions should make Swift any different from a musician or band who is making their first $1,000. The thing they have in common is creation. Artistry that wins you Grammys, of which Swift has several, should speak for itself.

I had a friend mention the issue of the cost of an album is the cost of a meal, but I would like to parry that Swift spent two years composing her last album. She spent months with other composers and producers mixing it. She has spent hours singing for it. She has spent years on tour and the price tag should reflect her career as the work it is.

I once heard Austin described as a disaster for artists by a professional artist who has studio space rented at The Canopy, an East side collection of studios housed in an old factory.

The artist explained that Austin is problematic because there is so much creative energy and a vast creative community but not a great deal of funding.

The artist pointed out essentially that when you have a bunch of starving artists living together you have a lot of creation, but not many sales. This example was in regards to visual art, but I think in the self-proclaimed “Live Music Capitol of the World” the same concerns apply.

Artists of all genres ought to be paid for their creations, and some even need to be paid in order to pay bills and get by.

If Swift does not feel that Spotify with their standard rates of between $0.006 and $0.0084 are worth her art, then she is right in standing against the crowd and pulling her music off.

Respecting the wishes of the artist is part of respecting a piece of art as something more than passing entertainment.

The question is: do you think the music is worth it?