The Wu-Tang Clan and The World's Most Exclusive Album(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
The Wu-Tang Clan and The World's Most Exclusive Album
http://priceonomics.com/the-wu-tang-clan-and-the-worlds-most-exclusive/
12 comments
The author builds arguments based on a couple of premises with which I disagree:
1. Live music and recorded music are just two representations of the same underlying piece of art.
I would argue that each rendition of a song is its own piece of artwork. A recording is tweaked until it represents the artist's (or producer's) vision of what the piece should sound like. A live show is spontaneous and unique by definition.
2. The measure of art is defined by the intrinsic quality of the piece.
I think that art is more than the piece itself and includes the context in which it was created and the way it is presented.
In the case of this album, I think that the business model, the current piracy context and even the gilded box contribute to a very interesting piece of artwork. Whether or not the album 'sounds good' is only one piece of the genius of this work.
To say that the Wu-Tang Clan is missing the issue with respect to music's exclusivity is totally beside the point. This is something entirely new, with a powerful statement in a very interesting context. For all we know, the entire album could be a bunch of farm animals and gun shots[1][2] and this would still be a great piece of artwork.
1: http://www.metafilter.com/73403/Something-Awful-Forum-Hilari...
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZMnF1VNlE
1. Live music and recorded music are just two representations of the same underlying piece of art.
I would argue that each rendition of a song is its own piece of artwork. A recording is tweaked until it represents the artist's (or producer's) vision of what the piece should sound like. A live show is spontaneous and unique by definition.
2. The measure of art is defined by the intrinsic quality of the piece.
I think that art is more than the piece itself and includes the context in which it was created and the way it is presented.
In the case of this album, I think that the business model, the current piracy context and even the gilded box contribute to a very interesting piece of artwork. Whether or not the album 'sounds good' is only one piece of the genius of this work.
To say that the Wu-Tang Clan is missing the issue with respect to music's exclusivity is totally beside the point. This is something entirely new, with a powerful statement in a very interesting context. For all we know, the entire album could be a bunch of farm animals and gun shots[1][2] and this would still be a great piece of artwork.
1: http://www.metafilter.com/73403/Something-Awful-Forum-Hilari...
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZMnF1VNlE
Disclaimer: personal opinion and generalizations to follow. Because art.
Under the umbrella of art, there are artists, and a subcategory of entertainers/performance artists. Music, because of the visceral reactions it elicits, tends to be best experienced in a live setting. The animation and general atmosphere of the crowd brings a lot to the emotional table that is lost elsewhere, including home listening rooms.
All this said, i get the idea they are aiming for, but it strikes me as the wrong presentation of the medium. Just as framed oils on canvas have a desired display in galleries that has been refined over centuries, music has a pinnacle presentation, and it does not include headphones.
Under the umbrella of art, there are artists, and a subcategory of entertainers/performance artists. Music, because of the visceral reactions it elicits, tends to be best experienced in a live setting. The animation and general atmosphere of the crowd brings a lot to the emotional table that is lost elsewhere, including home listening rooms.
All this said, i get the idea they are aiming for, but it strikes me as the wrong presentation of the medium. Just as framed oils on canvas have a desired display in galleries that has been refined over centuries, music has a pinnacle presentation, and it does not include headphones.
> Music, because of the visceral reactions it elicits, tends to be best experienced in a live setting. The animation and general atmosphere of the crowd brings a lot to the emotional table that is lost elsewhere, including home listening rooms.
Definitely a generalization, as you caveated. With few exceptions, my appreciation for musical depth is substantially lessened in a live setting.
One such exception is a venue with theater seating and an observant audience. The crowd sits and absorbs. I'm not taking chamber orchestra here, either. I mean Will Oldham or Bill Callahan or X-refined-"indie" band. Another is certain kinds of music played live in small bars where everyone is rip roaringly drunk and ecstatic but not focused on the performers, but engaged with the elevated social tenor, which includes dancing, senseless mixing, mingling and disregard for decorum. Random bluegrass works well for this.
But largely (read: basically always), I need to consume music in either solitude or in extremely intimate, restricted, established, and empathetic company. Otherwise I can't concentrate on my emotional responses or develop complex relationships with the work!
I don't mean that this is Appolonian for me. The contrary is true: it's Dionysian, but that's the kind of thing I can't get when surrounded, socially navigating, self-conscious and worried about the perception of others. Too much, not enough, as they say. My focus is a fragile thing, easily dismantled. (I envy the robust among you!)
Anyways, I'm just digressing here, not disagreeing, esp. as you allowed for the fact that you are generalizing a bit. My experience differs vis-à-vis musical appreciation. Certain friends of mine have expressed similar feelings.
But is it surprising that relationships to art will be as varied as people and art objects themselves?
My guess is that there is at least a baker's dozen worth of people out there who prefer listening to music through barriers we can't understand, and still as many whose appreciation for music and voice and song comes from not hearing it at all.
Definitely a generalization, as you caveated. With few exceptions, my appreciation for musical depth is substantially lessened in a live setting.
One such exception is a venue with theater seating and an observant audience. The crowd sits and absorbs. I'm not taking chamber orchestra here, either. I mean Will Oldham or Bill Callahan or X-refined-"indie" band. Another is certain kinds of music played live in small bars where everyone is rip roaringly drunk and ecstatic but not focused on the performers, but engaged with the elevated social tenor, which includes dancing, senseless mixing, mingling and disregard for decorum. Random bluegrass works well for this.
But largely (read: basically always), I need to consume music in either solitude or in extremely intimate, restricted, established, and empathetic company. Otherwise I can't concentrate on my emotional responses or develop complex relationships with the work!
I don't mean that this is Appolonian for me. The contrary is true: it's Dionysian, but that's the kind of thing I can't get when surrounded, socially navigating, self-conscious and worried about the perception of others. Too much, not enough, as they say. My focus is a fragile thing, easily dismantled. (I envy the robust among you!)
Anyways, I'm just digressing here, not disagreeing, esp. as you allowed for the fact that you are generalizing a bit. My experience differs vis-à-vis musical appreciation. Certain friends of mine have expressed similar feelings.
But is it surprising that relationships to art will be as varied as people and art objects themselves?
My guess is that there is at least a baker's dozen worth of people out there who prefer listening to music through barriers we can't understand, and still as many whose appreciation for music and voice and song comes from not hearing it at all.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
I'm glad you disclaimed your post as opinion, because I don't agree with it but that's okay (and it's probably not really important to argue my viewpoint either). But I do think that the concept Wutang is pushing here is outlined fairly well in the article - that they want to offer something unique, experiential in a different way, and to foster new thinking and creative concepts. I can't see it being replicated often or ever - it seems to me more like it's an effort to prove a point regarding the value (or devaluation) of music in general.
So, in that sense, I'm not sure that it's "wrong" - unless it's intentionally wrong, which it may be.
So, in that sense, I'm not sure that it's "wrong" - unless it's intentionally wrong, which it may be.
> Just as framed oils on canvas have a desired display in galleries that has been refined over centuries, music has a pinnacle presentation, and it does not include headphones.
It's actually quite recent (~100 years) to have framed oil on canvas in galleries for people to look at them.
It's actually quite recent (~100 years) to have framed oil on canvas in galleries for people to look at them.
[deleted]
This kind of idea is something that can only be pulled off after gaining a threshold level of fame and media attention.
It's not like this would work for anyone other than Wu-Tang.
Critics and Journalists are desperate to proclaim that this is the birth of a new business model for music, but it doesn't take a lot of intuition to understand that things work differently for a popular, talented group that already has millions of fans, as opposed to some random nobody in search of a music career. There's an obvious aspect of demand that plays against the supply startegy here.
Not to mention that the second, third and fourth people who attempt similar stunts will simply be accused of biting Wu's ideas, or perhaps they'll just be met by plain disinterest. Imagine Fred Durst conceives of a solo album with guest artists Korn and Linkin Park playing on select tracks, and then says:
It's not like this would work for anyone other than Wu-Tang.
Critics and Journalists are desperate to proclaim that this is the birth of a new business model for music, but it doesn't take a lot of intuition to understand that things work differently for a popular, talented group that already has millions of fans, as opposed to some random nobody in search of a music career. There's an obvious aspect of demand that plays against the supply startegy here.
Not to mention that the second, third and fourth people who attempt similar stunts will simply be accused of biting Wu's ideas, or perhaps they'll just be met by plain disinterest. Imagine Fred Durst conceives of a solo album with guest artists Korn and Linkin Park playing on select tracks, and then says:
"Hey guys, this amazing work of art will never
see the light of day, unless one hundred billion
dollars."
I guess the model worked okay for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets (right down to the "make music more like other art types" motivation), but it certainly doesn't scale.
[deleted]
I think this is super cool. I mean, I think the shows would be fun to go to. Although I wouldn't bother with the headphones if I were them, maybe have it on good speakers first, then available for second listening / skipping around on headphones.
Previous posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=wu-tang#!/story/forever/prefix/0/w....
Well, as soon as someone listens to it for the first time and lets everyone know that they're long past their heyday (just listen to Enter the Wu-Tang: 36 Chambers instead), this will all be a moot point.
That's my prediction, at least.
That's my prediction, at least.
I chafe at that a bit. Wu Tang was always one of the most creative forces in hip-hop. If you look at what they have done as a group and individually over the last two decades, there is some very impressive output. I don't like the idea that they are past their prime just because their hip-hop golden era work was so influential, or because hip-hop is seen as disposable youth culture that old men have no place in. A lot of it is just nostalgia if you ask me. Personally I think they've earned the right to be treated as artists even as they age and have their work be given honest consideration. I mean we're not talking about friggin' Pitbull here.
Don't underestimate the Wu. "The Wu is too slammin for these Cold Killin labels."
>great musicians such as Beethoven, Mozart and Bach [were] held in the same high esteem as figures like Picasso, Michelangelo and Van Gogh
The irony being that the Wu-Tang Clan probably earned more money than all those artists combined.
The irony being that the Wu-Tang Clan probably earned more money than all those artists combined.
While Van Gogh and Bach certainly lived fairly modest if not, in the former's case, threadbare lives, the others, who unlike Bach and Van Gogh were also quite highly regarded in their lives, were pretty well off (though Mozart squandered much of it).
Picasso, for instance, was estimated at a 50 million net worth when he died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/8/new...)
The others, being at least a couple hundred years older, make it a lot trickier to figure out conversions, though they all seemed to have, for most of their career, lived fairly successful and comfortable, though certainly hard working, lives. Michaelangelo, for instance, was well known for getting wealthy contracts from popes, merchants, and the like.
Picasso, for instance, was estimated at a 50 million net worth when he died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/8/new...)
The others, being at least a couple hundred years older, make it a lot trickier to figure out conversions, though they all seemed to have, for most of their career, lived fairly successful and comfortable, though certainly hard working, lives. Michaelangelo, for instance, was well known for getting wealthy contracts from popes, merchants, and the like.
In b4 pirates leak it anyway.
Aside from all the commentary on his intent with this, I have a simple question: do we think they can actually keep this album from being leaked? I know they're talking about making users use special headphones etc, but when push comes to shove, can't someone figure out a way to cheat this? Super tiny microphones that could record from inside the ear or something? Fake ear, if I'm coming up with crazy possibilities?
Like anything that claims extreme security, it begs someone to go to extremes to break it. Will they succeed? I kind of think someone will.