
Wu-Tang Clan Offered $5M for New Album Only Available as One Copy - cityzen
http://pitchfork.com/news/54627-rza-says-wu-tang-clan-offered-5-million-for-new-album-thats-only-available-as-one-copy/
======
sutterbomb
Am I the only one who loves this? The arguments here all seem to portray this
as if Wu-Tang, or anybody really, plans on using this as a new business model
that is sustainable and repeatable. In that light it is seen as "regressive"
and "anti-innovative", or it won't work because it'll get leaked, history
trends toward open etc.

In reality it's a very smart marketing tactic (they're selling another album
with regular distribution btw), and is a piece of performance art in its own
right. It raises questions and encourages discussion about the value of art &
music in the digital age. This is particularly noteworthy coming from the rap
genre which is typically not given enough credit for its role in shaping music
trends and pop culture generally. The "art" in question isn't really about the
music, it's about framing music as art.

[Edited for grammar/spelling]

~~~
sizzle
I have some personal info on this exact issue from a good friend I trust that
works with their label/is good friends with the members. Take it as you wish,
but I can't help but share because it would be great if someone else confirmed
it.

basically my friend told me that they were coerced into making a "last" album
(this was before it was formally announced by them fyi), to pay off a group of
club-bouncer thugs that follow them to all their events and threaten them for
payment--I'll explain below.

When wu-tang was getting popular and played at inner city clubs, the manager
would pick out 5-10 of the meanest looking guys in the crowd and tell them to
essentially act as bouncers in the venue if things too got out of control. He
couldn't pay then, but these guys would do this at every venue and over time,
bonded over this newfound relationship with wu-tang clan. They got wu-tang
tattoos on their arms and felt proud of the affiliation (almost to the tune of
resembling a gang). Once wu-tang started playing gigs at bigger, mainstream
venues these bouncer men were no longer needed.

These wu-tang tatoo'd bouncers felt wronged, and attributes wu-tang's success
now with the protection they provided at dangerous inner-city clubs. They felt
like they were employees in a sense and demanded a percentage of all the
revenue the group was now making. They threaten the group and manager
frequently and my friend said, wu-tang desperately needed to pay them off
because they are all older now and fear for the safety of their families.

This album was then announced publicly and I can't help but put two and two
together. Was this album created to get a quick sum of money to pay off the
club bouncers once and for all? I can't stop thinking about it now.

I promise I'm not making this up, just wondering if anyone can confirm any of
these assertions that are knowledgeable with wu-tang/hip hop.

~~~
loso
I used to work club security for 6 years and have done at least 12 wu tang or
wu affiliate shows. I've also done radio interviews with several of them when
I was a DJ in the late 90s. I never saw anything that would be considered
intimidation in this manner at any of their shows. The closest problem I can
remember is some random guy in the crowd picking a fight with UGod while he
was walking from the stage. But this happened with a lot of artist. Not saying
a story like this isn't true but it sounds highly unlikely.

~~~
sizzle
thank you! I guess it's just hearsay or someone messing with my friend, good
to know.

------
scott_s
I see this as regressive, not progressive. It is a regression to a time before
recorded music, when the only way to listen to music was to attend a live
performance. That appears to be what they want, and I understand the inherent
romanticism in that, but I don't want to go back to that time.

Live music is amazing, but it is also a rare treat. (For me; I assume that
many people here hear live music regularly.) Perhaps they want to force their
work to be a rare treat. But I spent an hour last night, after lifting, just
sitting on my couch with my iPad, listening to the punk music that was my
soundtrack to high school. It was amazing, and made possible because of the
ease of recording, distributing and listening to digital music.

Although, something to consider is that they must realize that once they start
hosting these listening sessions, bootleg recordings will crop up. Perhaps
they are counting on that, and this will be a way to have their cake and eat
it too: their lone physical copy will remain special because it is the only
_real_ copy, but everyone will hear the music through the bootlegs, which will
gain notoriety for being the only way to hear the "unique" recording.

~~~
spinchange
The idea of hosting listening sessions strikes me as a way to capitalize on a
tour without providing the fans a live performance. They're trying to have it
both ways - the scarcity of something that isn't recorded by 'performing' a
recording.

~~~
mjmahone17
Isn't that what photographers and other visual artists do? It's not like
there's no work involved in producing an album, and this way your audience can
hear your "perfected" version.

~~~
spinchange
Visual art exhibitions aren't hip hop shows. I can't see how the audience
experience and excitement isn't greatly diminished if you're paying to go
somewhere to put on someone else's headphones to listen to a record. If
someone wants to do that, more power to them. Tickets will probably be very
limited and super expensive just reinforce the whole exclusivity and "high
art" pretense. I'm just saying, it's hip hop.

------
davidgerard
JOHN CAGE MATCH, Praxis, Wednesday (NTN) — The Wu-Tang Clan has announced the
nonrelease of their new album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, to be made
available in an edition of no copies.

“Music is a commodity these days and we want it treated as art,” said RZA.
“The LP record you listened to reverently at home gave way to the portable
cassette and CD, and now the copiable and disposable MP3. But the rarer the
art, the better. So we’re making the album available as no copies whatsoever.
It’s artier that way.”

The album will be unavailable as a double blank CD-R, though the band is
considering refusing to offer it on blank LP and blank cassette as well. An
MP3 of silence will also be withheld, as will an Apple Lossless download of
silence from iTunes. The first video, “ ”, is not up on YouTube and Vimeo in
the form of four minutes’ silence and a blank screen.

The album failed to be recorded at home by the band over the past several
years. “Art only suffers from excessive physical realisation. In fact, the
more physical realisation, the further the art falls from the perfection of
the conception. So what we did was stay home in bed and think really hard
about what the record should sound like. Frankly, it’s amazing. Well, we think
it would be.”

The band hopes to get five meeellion dollarsss for this conceptual work. “We
firmly believe that art — art! — should not suffer the petty, tawdry,
bourgeois constraints of genre, media gatekeepers, critics, quality or
existence. But the absolutely key point — which we’re completely clear on — is
that it should be paid for with actual money.”

MODAL LOGIC PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF ONCE UPON A TIME IN SHAOLIN

(I) The existence of a perfect Wu-Tang album does not necessarily entail the
existence of gratuitous suffering.

(II) If a perfect Wu-Tang album is possible, then the perfect being
necessarily exists (given axiom S5 of modal logic).

(III) The perfect Wu-Tang album is possible. (This is a logical consequence of
(I).)

(IV) The perfect Wu-Tang album necessarily exists (modus ponens on (II) and
(III).

(V) Therefore, the apparently-nonexistent album does in fact exist, and you
should pay real money for it.

[http://newstechnica.com/2014/04/02/new-wu-tang-clan-album-
av...](http://newstechnica.com/2014/04/02/new-wu-tang-clan-album-available-
only-as-no-copies-at-all/)

~~~
nl
Wu-Tang are clearly being derivative of Vulfpeck here.

The problem that Vulfpeck had was that their music was too easy to copy.
Because of the uniquely repetitive nature of most of their songs they matched
the MP3 compression algorithm particularly well which made them simple to post
in forums. For example, their best known song is available by playing the
following characters as an MP3: [1]. Of course any music fan will pick out how
derivative Vulfpeck is of John Gage[2], so I guess what goes around comes
around.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/21/vulfpeck-releases-an-
album-...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/21/vulfpeck-releases-an-album-of-
absolute-silence-on-spotify-to-make-money/)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3)

------
bcohen5055
Just currious... Say someone purchased the album and then sold duplicates,
would Wu-Tang be able to sue? Technically there are no damages, Wu-Tang isn't
out any money from missing album sales and the seller is just trying to make a
decent ROI on his 5 million dollar asset.

~~~
_kst_
How would that differ from duplicating any other album without permission?
(Unless the buyer also buys the right to distribute copies.)

~~~
paradoja
In that there is no way to argue that the artist lost sales due to the copies,
thus, no harm made.

~~~
drcube
"Lost sales" is not a necessary component of copyright infringement, if I
recall.

~~~
JohnTHaller
It is a component when calculating any damages, though.

~~~
drcube
Is it? How do they figure? Or do they just use whatever number RIAA gives
them?

------
brownbat
There's a Sufjan Stevens song that can only be heard by attending private
listening parties in Brooklyn. It's free to attend, but no recording equipment
is allowed.

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124475230719107485](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124475230719107485)

------
antiterra
Art isn't and shouldn't be rare. Market value is orthogonal to the quality of
artistic experience a work can provide.

The real service would be promoting a more sophisticated consumption of art
that hasn't yet been turned into currency for the super rich.

~~~
devindotcom
I'm not convinced, my friend. Much of the best art ever created is one of a
kind. You can see pictures of it, or replicas of it, but the art itself is as
rare as it gets. Original creations are by definition must be created in the
singular becore they can be distributed. Value, after that, is a strange and
complicated thing when it comes to art, especially nowadays.

As for promoting a more sophisticated consumption of art, what do you have in
mind, and how could the Wu have contributed?

~~~
antiterra
I didn't mean that good art can't be one of a kind. I meant that art as a
whole isn't a rare resource.

Also, what if the art _is_ a photograph?

As for art consumption, that's a big topic, but I wish we made an effort to
find relevance to our own lives for something we learn or recognize in art. We
do this relatively well for music. We recognize metaphors and themes for
betrayal, redemption, and shame in songs.

When it comes to visual art or literature, we become suspicious when someone
suggests we could interpret someone's hair being dyed as a benediction. We
worry about the artist's intent to show symbols, but barely recognize them if
the intent is clear. The Syfy TV series "Caprica" had an unclothed woman
suggestively holding an apple in its ads, but how many people consciously
recognized it as biblical allegory?

[1]
[http://www.impawards.com/tv/posters/caprica.jpg](http://www.impawards.com/tv/posters/caprica.jpg)

------
aaronbrethorst
Reminds me vaguely of William Gibson's _Agrippa_ :
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(a_book_of_the_dead)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_\(a_book_of_the_dead\))

------
Erwin
Jarre did something similar in 83, making only one physical copy:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets)

~~~
leoc
Mr. Doctor did it again in '87:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Doll_(band)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Doll_\(band\))

------
rjtavares
The title of the submission bugs me, as it directly contradicting the spirit
of the album:

> "The main theme is music being accepted and respected as art and being
> treated as such."

The point is that music should always be treated as art...

~~~
dagurp
I'm confused. Is music not being treated as art today? How will making it
unavailable to the public change anything?

~~~
zevyoura
They mean art in the sense of "high art"[0]

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture#High_art](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture#High_art)

------
lignuist
> He continued: "I don't know how to measure it, but it gives us an idea that
> what we're doing is being understood by some. And there are some good peers
> of mine also, who are very high-ranking in the film business and the music
> business, sending me a lot of good will. It's been real positive.

So Wu-Tang Clan fans in Kazakhstan or Tanzania (or even every country other
than the U.S.) will probably never be able to listen to this album...? I guess
these will be the people who don't "understand" what Wu-Tang Clan is doing,
while only the privileged ones "understand" the concept.

That's artificial shortage, not art (not talking about the music itself).

~~~
dreamdu5t
Wu-Tang's stunt is a reaction to your perspective on art — to reclaim some of
the novelty eradicated by the commoditization of music.

~~~
lignuist
My perspective on art is a reaction on the elitism of the art scene, so
basically my comments are art.

Edit/addition: Honestly, I could have much more respect for this project, if
Wu-Tang made it only accessible to homeless people, or only to prisoners, but
effectively, they make it only accessible to the riches. I really do like the
Wu-Tang Clan, but I am really not impressed by this stunt.

------
jacquesm
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets)

69,000 French Francs in 1983.

------
sreyaNotfilc
I have a couple of thoughts on this.

1\. This is freakin' brilliant! Its about time someone stepped up and treated
their craft like true art. There is only one Mona Lisa. Yes, we have prints
all over the place, but there is only one Mona Lisa. And its valuable!

    
    
       Now, not all artists can do this. Wu-Tang can. They have been around for a while. They have sold millions. They have a big fan based. So, this is perfect for them. They'll still earn money from shows. Probably more now that each show has something "historic" to offer now that a song from the new album will be performed here and there.
    
      Great job Wu-Tang!
    

2\. Imagine if the Beetles' White Album or MJ's Thriller, or Eagles Their
Greatest Hits, or even Nirvana's Nevermind was a "one print" album. I wonder
how much it would be worth. Its exciting to think about.

------
loso
This goes in line with RZA and his thinking since the Wu's first arrival. A
good example is Raekwons album Only built for Cuban linx. It was a released as
a purple tape. Not the first colored tape to be released but it became special
and know as "the purple tape". It helped that it was a great album but the
fact that the tape was purple became a legend within itself in hip hop. The
Old Dirty Bastard album became known for having his real welfare card on the
cover of his album. RZA has pulled a lot of stunts and this seems to be his
biggest and most interesting one.

------
twfarland
All of us asserting what Art is or Art isn't are dancing to RZA's tune. This
is probably a desired outcome of his gesture. It might annoy some, but it will
be quite effective.

------
batmansbelt
Will they be selling non-physical copies? Even if not, it wouldn't be
surprising if it leaked somehow.

~~~
selectout
They will not, whoever buys it owns all rights to the music and can resell it
if they want (Sony, iTunes, Amazon could be buyers for this reason) or could
just release it to the world for free.

~~~
jrochkind1
Where'd you find the info on that, the buyer will get all the rights too? None
of the articles i've seen have said that, although it would make sense and
I've seen people on discussion forums assuming it. Just looking for a
citation.

~~~
batmansbelt
It makes sense. If you buy a painting, don't you get the reproduction rights
as well?

~~~
jrochkind1
I don't think you necessarily do, but I'm no expert in copyright law or
typical contracts as it applies to paintings.

But I know when you buy a CD you don't normally get the reproduction rights as
well, no matter how many or few copies were pressed.

But I agree that it would make sense, as I said. But, I also know "it would
make sense" is definitely not a reliable predictor of what's actually going on
when it comes to the music industry or copyright law.

And if this is what Wu Tang is doing... shouldn't we able to find them saying
so in print? So I'm curious if anyone has.

------
pjbrunet
"Onyx tape, $3.99 my friend, come buy from me ... no no!"

[http://youtu.be/Ijf8nE12AX0](http://youtu.be/Ijf8nE12AX0)

------
jessaustin
I wonder how many millions one must pay for a CD to get the right to copy it
onto a friend's device included.

~~~
Ellipsis753
Buy two and give your friend one?

~~~
Ellipsis753
I'm getting down voted for this so I'd be interested to know why. You really
do get rights for a friend if they have their own copy. So it doesn't cost
millions.

~~~
jessaustin
In this case there is only one physical copy available, the bids for which
approach $5M; that's kind of the point here.

~~~
Ellipsis753
Oh right. Ok. I thought you meant CDs in general. I think it's been said now
though that you get the rights to copy it if you buy this one.

------
ambler0
Surely someone will leak the songs?

~~~
twfarland
They might even do it themselves. It wouldn't contradict their aim to generate
and control the buzz.

------
judk
Seems like Blender and the occasional "bounty" for open source projects.

------
axilmar
After it is sold, I'll download it from the usual 0-day torrent sites :-).

------
emiljbs
Talk about taking the worst part about art and thinking that that's what art
is about.

------
brunoqc
This seems silly.

~~~
hiphopyo
I think it's brilliant. Nobody's ever done it before. Also that CD box looks
like an ancient treasure. Wish I could get my hands on it.

~~~
bitL
Jean Michel Jarre - Music for the Supermarkets

~~~
hiphopyo
Cool, thanks for the info.

------
abjorn
I was under the impression that most people agree that music is art. Maybe
some of it is bad art, but art none the less.

The idea that there can only be one that has to be toured around to be
experienced in order for it to be art is just ridiculous. I'm a fan of Wu-Tang
but this is just a gimmick on their part.

------
khursev
So in order their work to be treated as art, they need to release only one
copy... poor Wu-Tang...

~~~
hiphopyo
It will be art regardless. This way though, as you can see, its value has
skyrocketed.

~~~
drcube
Not obviously. I'm pretty sure they could sell 5M copies at a buck apiece.
Even in these dark days of record sales, they could probably make more than
$5M with mass distribution.

~~~
bcohen5055
They may make that in revenue, but actually profiting 5 mill may be bit more
challenging

~~~
ctdonath
Not at all. Buy for $5M, release on iTunes for $10/copy, sell 715k copies (not
hard, they're a big name and got AMAZING advertising dirt cheap from this
stunt), give Apple the presumed 30% cut, and every copy thereafter is $7
profit. Just 1.7M copies sold is $7M profit.

------
acjohnson55
I had shared this a week ago here:
[http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/3/26/5550260/wu-tang-clan-
wi...](http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/3/26/5550260/wu-tang-clan-will-only-
sell-a-single-copy-of-their-new-album)

Oh how fickle HN can be!

But to provide an actual opinion, I think this is extremely cool. We're still
waiting to see where the record business is headed next and it's nice to see
some outside the box thinking. The only negative in my mind is that this
doesn't seem to bring us that much closer to solving the biggest issue in the
music business, which is how we can get younger, fresher acts a larger share
of the pie.

In any case, I really hope whoever buys it chooses to share the album with the
world.

------
jamespollack
this is one of the worst, most backward-looking, anti-innovative views of art
today that i've ever encountered. i'm sure they'll make money on it, but i
can't wait until the first rip of this 'unlistenable' album hits pirate bay.
as a piece of 'institutional critique', the website/album/company itself is
moderately interesting, but barely that since most of what they say regarding
contemporary art, exclusivity, ephemerality, and Damien Hirst can be rather
easily countered -- due to their tendency toward bombastic or hyperbolic
statements without any evidence thereof. let's pay attention to people trying
to make the world better and not this pseudo-intellectual, luxury circle jerk.

also, terrible website & tired copy.
[http://scluzay.com/](http://scluzay.com/)

~~~
dasil003
If innovation is Spotify, where a given artist must have millions of active
listeners before they can earn a lower-middle-class paycheck, then I don't see
what value "innovation" has to music as an art form. The old music industry as
gatekeepers may have exploited artists, but technology hasn't done anything to
distribute they wealth; it's only lower the barrier to entry, but as a whole
the industry has been devalued.

Hip hop in particular has been the most devalued of all musical genres, and
seen as a disposable fad for decades. Wu Tang is doing an experiment here, to
put their foot down and say we are artists in the grandest tradition of old.
It may be backward-looking, but it's backward-looking with real purpose and
conviction, and something that no one else really has the balls to do. So
while it may not use the latest technology and scratch that techno-fetigist
itch we tend to have around here, it is absolutely one of the most interesting
things happening today in the music world, and I wish them all success.

~~~
jamespollack
Define value (specifically in relation to art, or music, or both). Define how
something is 'devalued' (specifically to art, or music, or both)). Define who
has 'devalued' the 'whole industry'. Define why hip hop has been the 'most
devalued of all musical genres'. Then tell me how this gnostic priesthood
giving us mere mortals a peek at 'the real thing' is going to give all that
value back to hip hop.

There's no technological fetish here, simply a desire to live today and avoid
a historical fetish. I don't live in the Renaissance Era or in the 'Swinging
Sixties'. It's 2014 and it's sad that this group of people find actually
addressing the problem of relevance and value in our day and age too difficult
and instead recycle old, problematic forms.

Of all the arts, digital has probably helped music the most. Send me a link to
the 'Art' section on the App store.

Does Wu-Tang really need validation from the institutions (the academy,
galleries, museums, etc) that they don't already have from the millions of
people who listen to their albums and go to their shows?

Do you honestly think that this showing is going to help those artists who
want to earn a 'middle-class paycheck'??? Because it seems to me altogether
unlikely that most artists will be able to afford to put on a multi-location,
state-of-the-art-security presentation like this. C'mon, be realistic.

'Rarity' is only one component of aesthetic beauty. All of the other ones need
to be there to give something value. Increasing the 'rarity' to maximum does
not an art object make.

Patronage is nice if you've got enough $$$$$$. Hope you get the chance to see
the 'holy grail' in your lifetime. Start saving.

~~~
antiterra
Hip-hop didn't suddenly gain qualitative value when the first Rap Grammy was
given, and that value didn't jump when they finally televised the award.

But plenty of people still consider similar vehicles of industry and academia
as important and authoritative, and that kind of institutional value and
respect is exactly what RZA is seeking. I think this only reinforces the
questionable authority and ability for inward facing groups like NARAS and
AMPAS to anoint their own works as respectable.

So, you're right objectively, but in the context of the systems the public
supports, perhaps not.

