

The Wu-Tang Clan and The World's Most Exclusive Album - ryan_j_naughton
http://priceonomics.com/the-wu-tang-clan-and-the-worlds-most-exclusive/

======
mikeh1010
I'm a big hip hop head and I applaud Wu-Tang and especially RZA for being one
of the most innovative minds in rap. His book The Tao of Wu was excellent, I
highly recommend it.

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.

------
filearts
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...](http://www.metafilter.com/73403/Something-Awful-Forum-Hilariously-
Hijacks-CBC-Anthem-Contest)

2:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZMnF1VNlE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZMnF1VNlE)

------
liquidise
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.

~~~
ryanklee
> 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.

------
pigDisgusting
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:

    
    
      "Hey guys, this amazing work of art will never 
       see the light of day, unless one hundred billion 
       dollars." 
    

Okay, Fred Durst, that's great, please promise to never show anyone anything
you do ever again, and take Korn and Linkin Park with you. We'll all be
eternally grateful. Thanks.

------
pgeorgi
I guess the model worked okay for
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets](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.

------
jchrisa
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.

------
dang
Previous posts: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=wu-
tang#!/story/forever/prefix/0/w...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=wu-
tang#!/story/forever/prefix/0/wu-tang%20one%20copy).

------
nnnnni
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.

~~~
dasil003
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.

------
ginko
>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.

~~~
sheltgor
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...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/8/newsid_2523000/2523469.stm))

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.

------
lockes5hadow
In b4 pirates leak it anyway.

------
anishkothari
Dollar, dollar bill y'all. Also, Wu-Tang Financial.

~~~
southflorida
well played

