In this case, the singer has a property right to her voice.
It is not the result that defines the property right, but the origin.
The dichotomy that exists regarding rights is a misrepresentation. The distinction has created a class of rights, human, that are regarded as not only equal for all but should be enforced equally for all.
By forcing automatic enforcement of human rights, two detrimental developments have occurred.
Rothbard provided the example of an individuals right to free speech in the case of falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.
The fact that an individual has no right to do this is not a limitation on their right to free speech.
It should strike the reader as somewhat paradoxical then that rights which have been deemed inalienable are assaulted from time to time. The perversion of this origin will lead into the second point, the tragedy of the commons that has occurred as some rights are relegated to the realm of human status.
As no true difference exists between the nature of rights, the only explanation for this disparity can be found not in their origin, but in their application.
Today we are at a loss to phrase the crux of the argument any better than Locke (1960) did over 300 years ago; As labor, or the human element, and physical goods are intrinsically linked in the Lockean world, it naturally follows that the rights attached to them are one and the same.
The rights inherent in a persons self are indistinguishable, theoretically, from those of the fruits of their labor.