Wu Tang to Sell Only One Copy of its New Album

[BvBPL]

Rap super group Wu Tang Clan has a new album coming out and you can't buy it.

Instead of selling tons of copies, the Clan is going to print one copy, put in an pretty box, and have the album tour art museums. As conceptualized by the band, attendees at museums will pay $30 - $50 to listen to a copy of the album. Attendees will be searched for recording devices and may have to listen through provided headphones.

I guess once the museum tour is done the album will go up for sale. It will be as unique as "the scepter of an Egyptian king."

The idea, at least in part, is to cement music as art. Rza, and presumably the rest of the clan, feels that music is no longer perceived as an artistic endeavor.

Master Killa thinks this will revolutionize music. I'm not really sure how. Certainly the idea is revolutionary, but I don't really see how it will change music itself.

Do you think that the rarity of the music will increase the appreciation of the music? Is there an inherent beauty or art in something being unique? Do you agree or disagree w/ Rza when he says that the free availability of music has devalued music?

What would you think if Wu Tang never rereleased the music from this album, but occasionally performed songs from it live. Would that enhance or diminish the unique album?

The box really is pretty.

Link

By the way, don't worry too much about a dearth of Wu Tang. Their 20th anniversary album will drop later this year and I think they are making that album available to plebs like us.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Huh, I thought this would be a protest against pirating.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I completely disagree. Of all the things you value music for, rarity isn't one of them. Case in point: I'm not much of a Wu Tang fan, so how will I appreciate their music more if I am not willing to pay to hear it? If anything, this devalues that album by denying a large amount of people access to it. People who might enjoy it.

However I still like the idea because of it's originality.

How did they come to the conclusion Music isn't perceived as as an artistic endeavour? It is for most of the fans.

By the way: too be perfectly honest, if this works, guess who's making a butt-load of money? But I assume that's just for artistic purposes.

 

[BvBPL]

It certainly is a statement about the free availability of music and how the value of music, as a consumer commodity, has depreciated. Certainly music piracy is part of that broader picture..

 

[Formaldehyde]

They don't have an over-inflated opinion of themselves at all...

 

[BvBPL]

I completely disagree. Of all the things you value music for, rarity isn't one of them. Case in point: I'm not much of a Wu Tang fan, so how will I appreciate their music more if I am not willing to pay to hear it? If anything, this devalues that album by denying a large amount of people access to it. People who might enjoy it.

However I still like the idea because of it's originality.

Well a concert has value in part because the concert itself is a unique experience. Even if the set list never changes between concerts, each concert remains unique.

Here the idea that the album will go on tour makes listening to it a likely unique experience for each listener. This will change the way at least some listeners interact with the music as some people will attempt to actively listen to the music rather than putting in their car stereo and skipping between the few tracks they like.

Arguably that adds value to the music and the listening experience.

Having the album tour art museums may add value in and of itself. Some fans of Wu Tang may go to, say, the Tate simply because the album is there. That gets people who would not normally engage at all with modern art at least in the door.

How did they come to the conclusion Music isn't perceived as as an artistic endeavour?

I'm not sure I understand it myself beyond the depreciation of music as a consumer good described above. Which implies that art has to cost money, which isn't something with which I necessarily agree.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Having the album tour art museums may add value in and of itself. Some fans of Wu Tang may go to, say, the Tate simply because the album is there. That gets people who would not normally engage at all with modern art at least in the door.

That's a good point. Way better than the article's.

 

[Traitorfish]

Rza, and presumably the rest of the clan, feels that music is no longer perceived as an artistic endeavor.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

However I still like the idea because of it's originality.

I seem to recall Jean Michel Jarre doing something similar about 30 years ago.

 

[civver_764]

I guess that they can do whatever they want, though the checking for recording devices just seems schizophrenic and unnatural.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok.

In that case I like the idea because of it's lack of frequency.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I completely disagree. Of all the things you value music for, rarity isn't one of them. Case in point: I'm not much of a Wu Tang fan, so how will I appreciate their music more if I am not willing to pay to hear it? If anything, this devalues that album by denying a large amount of people access to it. People who might enjoy it.

...

How did they come to the conclusion Music isn't perceived as as an artistic endeavour? It is for most of the fans.

I think it's not just a binary matter of whether music is appreciated or not when it's rare. I think it's also a matter of how you appreciate music. I certainly can't say my appreciation for music isn't effected by the fact that it's not only ubiquitous, but infinitely reproducible. It certainly changes what we want and prioritize with our music.

I probably will be listening to this, and I have to say, knowing this may be the only time I get to hear the album, ever, is going to change how I listen to it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I guess once the museum tour is done the album will go up for sale. It will be as unique as "the scepter of an Egyptian king."

They don't even understand how their own stunt ought to work. After the music has made its museum tour, they should destroy the single copy of it. That is what would make having had the opportunity to listen to it in a museum a unique and special musical experience (and therefore worth $50). If it goes up for sale, it will eventually be reduplicated like any other piece of music these days.

Have some artistic cojones, guys.

 

[Angst]

First off, this has been done before I think. I don't recall the name of the old record.

Second, this is hotly debated in my studies. I will return with some structured thought if I ever get one.

I will try a little for now:

Music is a temporal thing: it only exists as it is mediated, in 'living time' and is only possible to experience in time. (Not to be confused with 'live music'.) Other styles of art have this fundamental element to them, but one in particular does not, and that is the spatial art exhibition; the sculpture, the painting. Literature in general. While interpretation of this work changes (as the observer changes in time) the work is meaningfully categorized as having no temporal qualities as it remains the same while the observer changes. The musical piece changes like the observer does in live, synchronized time, if you will.

If music was present only as it unfolded in time, it would only be meaningful when it was mediated. And the mediation was traditionally done by the band. The moment the phonograph allowed 'storage' of the mediation of a musical piece, the meaningful temporal space a music piece exists in was possible to remediate and allow for further inspection into the piece. Also it gained a sense of spatuality which exists in the record.

Why am I saying this? Because noone bats an eye when the traditionally spatual pieces (a painting, a poem) is displayed in its staunch self. People don't really consider the implications of some things going on on Youtube:


Link to video.

That, my friends, is the-painting-as-music; if we were to understand this process as we do music, merely looking at the final piece (like the very last frame) is insufficient to our æsthetic appreciation of the live time mediation of it.

All in all, I disagree with Wu Tang Clan, but not because I think music has lost its soul or something similar. I disagree with their very premise and the nature of the debate they're moving towards. This thing about some art's true heart being lost is nonsense. The nature of art simply changes, often with technology; there are so implicit understandings of the way we make, appreciate and analyze art in each and every one's specific category that these kinds of essentialist ways to articulate 'proper' art isn't really a meaningful endeavour.

"Digital speed painting | Feathers" by "Kontayjin Art" is a recorded artefact as much as this thing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

the Clan is going to print one copy,

The folly of their undertaking is evident in paradox within this phrase, "one copy." Works of art that are unique (as Angst points out, paintings and statues) are not spoken of as a copy. A reproduction of them is not the artwork itself. Other forms of art (music, literature) exist only as copies, exist only in some form of reduplication. A score is a set of instructions for multiple musical groups to re-realize a piece of music on multiple occasions. Even a text is a set of instructions for re-realizing the sounds and meanings of a poem. You can see the first copy (note that phrasing) of Milton's "Lycidas" at the British Library. It has historical interest, but it is no more the poem than any later printed version of it is. But anyone who does an imitation of Michelangelo's David, is making only a copy of that artwork; that copy does not have the same artistic status of the thing it reduplicates.

Even if the person who buys the unique copy never distributes it more widely (the stunt depends on that restraint), it won't turn music into the equivalent of a statue. Every time the owner plays it for himself, he will be aware that he has activated instructions for a reduplication. (Notice that they need the box in order to give the impression that this is the same kind of artwork that a statue or a painting is. The box may be; the recording in it is not.)

Here's how this will play out. Remember you heard it here first, and within hours of the stunt itself being described. The album will make its museum tour. The supposedly unique copy will be sold at auction for nearly half a million dollars. The purchaser will report that owning it never gave him the same kind of pleasure as his paintings and statues gave him. He will eventually decide to release it to the public (unless the purchase involves a contractual obligation not to). And that is if the piece doesn't get out beforehand. There will not be just one copy of the album. I'm not saying some engineer will surreptiously make his own copy (though that might happen). I'm just saying that the process of producing this supposedly unique copy will generate other copies. That's how copying works. And one of those other copies will eventually be made public.

Just be patient. You will hear Wu Tang's album (if you want to) whether you pay your $50 or not.

 

[BvBPL]

The folly of their undertaking is evident in paradox within this phrase, "one copy." Works of art that are unique (as Angst points out, paintings and statues) are not spoken of as a copy. A reproduction of them is not the artwork itself. Other forms of art (music, literature) exist only as copies, exist only in some form of reduplication. A score is a set of instructions for multiple musical groups to re-realize a piece of music on multiple occasions. Even a text is a set of instructions for re-realizing the sounds and meanings of a poem. You can see the first copy (note that phrasing) of Milton's "Lycidas" at the British Library. It has historical interest, but it is no more the poem than any later printed version of it is. But anyone who does an imitation of Michelangelo's David, is making only a copy of that artwork; that copy does not have the same artistic status of the thing it reduplicates.

Even if the person who buys the unique copy never distributes it more widely (the stunt depends on that restraint), it won't turn music into the equivalent of a statue. Every time the owner plays it for himself, he will be aware that he has activated instructions for a reduplication. (Notice that they need the box in order to give the impression that this is the same kind of artwork that a statue or a painting is. The box may be; the recording in it is not.)

There are several critiques of your opinion above, not withstanding your later contention that a copy may later be made, that immediately come to mind.

The first is that you did not explain what the folly is. Even if we accept what you say above, you have not demonstrated where the error lies.

The next is the absurdity of saying a sculpture cannot be copied. Of course it can be. Sculptors make multiple casts of sculptures all the time. Like this sculpture. Presuming that the casts of the sculpture are all copies of each other, we have demonstrative evidence of a piece of art that can and has been copied.

Really though, the principal error you've made is implying that the quality of something being art is based solely on the physical thing itself. That all of the art in David in encompassed in the sculpture itself and that all of the art in, say, Howl is encompassed within the words on the page. This is not the case, at least for the poem. The art Howl is not merely limited to words on the page but is also within the performance of the poem. The performance is unrepeatable, unique.

What Wu Tang has done is created a means by which a record of the music can be turned into a unique experience for the museum listener by limiting the availability of the listener to rehear the music. While this is not revolutionary in itself, obviously live performances are not repeatable, it is remarkable today to create a musical recording that cannot be readily replayed by the consumer. The unique, unrepeatable aspect is not in the music itself, but in the listeners' experience. This turns the relationship between the listener and the recorded music on its head. Most listeners of recorded music have control over the music, they can pick up the needle to skip a song or flip it over the b-side. That's not the case with the museum tour.

Furthermore, you're assuming that the printed copy of the cd is a copy of something else. That's not really the case. The album was certainly composed of a variety of tracks that, taken separately, are not the composition. Even taken all together but out of order or putting Rza stereo left instead of stereo right or whatever does not create the composition itself in its ultimate form. That ultimate form of the composition exists in the cd and the master from which it was made. It is a duplicate of a master that exists only to make the duplicate cd. The master is the mold and the cd the resulting cast. The duplicate is unique despite being a copy because the purpose was to create that unique copy in a different medium.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I encourage museums to be created to honor works of musical art. I think there is definitely a viable cultural reason to do so. And the number of artists who should be honored is quite lengthy.

But Wu Tang Clan trying some sort of different means to publicize and make money off their latest album by capitalizing on the greed of some museums with dubious ethics? Not so much...

It will be quite interesting to see which museums try to exploit this to make a generous portion of the $30+ from each listener.

 

[Gori the Grey]

BvBPL,

If there is one copy of something, how many items are there?

Which statue do you regard as Michelangelo's David, the statue in the Accademia Gallery or the one on the Piazza Vecchio? Or both?

Why do people pay to see the one in the Accademia, when they can see the one in the Piazza for free?

What is the monetary value you would assign to Klimt's "The Kiss"? What is the value you would assign to a poster of that painting in college dorm room?

If I ask you for Dickens' Great Expectations, do you have to hand me the author's manuscript to comply with my request? Would it even occur to you that that was what I was asking for? Or would you simply hand me some copy of the novel?

What is the work of art in this album that Wu Tang Clan plans to produce? The performance they give that is captured in a recording? The object onto which the recording was made? A future playing-back of that recording?

Wu Tang Clan is attempting a stunt in which they treat an art that depends on reproduction-of-performance as though it is an art that depends on uniqueness-of-item. The stunt will not work (ultimately; they may well make the museum-tour stage of it work (though I suspect a leaked copy will subvert even that), and they may even make the auction stage of it work). I have laid out a very precise prediction about how this stunt will play out (if it makes it to auction stage), and I am willing to stake my reputation as an aesthetic theorist on that prediction. Admittedly, we will have to wait some years for the person who buys the album as a unique-item to realize that a work in that art form, music, only has its existence as a work of art in reproduction and decides therefore to release it to the general public.

But if you and I both stay active on CFC, one or the other of us can gloat in, say, ten years.

(The museum-tour stage of the process will alter the listeners' experience of the music in the way you say; I'm less interested in that stage of this stunt than in the auction stage.)

 

[El_Machinae]

They don't even understand how their own stunt ought to work. After the music has made its museum tour, they should destroy the single copy of it. That is what would make having had the opportunity to listen to it in a museum a unique and special musical experience (and therefore worth $50). If it goes up for sale, it will eventually be reduplicated like any other piece of music these days.

Have some artistic cojones, guys.

This is triggering a memory along the lines of "it's illegal to threaten to destroy something you are putting up for auction"

 

[Gori the Grey]

I had an afterthought to my previous post, and was going to add it as an edit, but El Machinae has posted before I got to that, so I'll add it as a new post, since it partly connects with what he said.

There are two stages to Wu Tang's stunt: 1) tour the music in museums and 2) auction the unique (if they can keep it that way) recording of the music. I have commented on various stages of the stunt in various of my posts, but now I want to start getting more rigorous in distinguishing them, in order to render a further judgment on their stunt.

This is speculation, but I would be willing to wager that the first idea that came to them was #2: "Hey, guys, let's make a whole album that we don't circulate but just auction off to one individual buyer." (Treat an album like a statue.) That's the artistically bold idea, because it violates the standard mode of handling works from that art form. But then they couldn't bear the thought of their musical work being heard by just a single individual, so they concocted #1, the museum tour. I think they couldn't bear the thought of their music being heard by just one individual for two reasons (or maybe they're just two ways of saying the same thing): 1) that's not how music works and 2) they are accustomed to regarding the value in their art deriving from lots of people saying "man, that song is ill." And they just couldn't bring themselves to sacrifice that measure of their works' value (possibly even because it is only through that valuing that they can generate the auction-value). So they developed stage 1.

But again, stage one makes the whole enterprise a less bold artistic stunt. Going to all the creative effort to generate a whole musical album that you then sell to just one person: cojones. (Or the alternative stunt that I proposed in the post to which El Mac just responded: do the museum tour and then irrevocably destroy the sole copy: cojones.) Charging people $50 to listen a single time to your album because you can't bear to create an album that only gets heard by one person: no cojones. I have no admiration for artists who wuss out from the full implications or ramifications of their supposedly earth-shaking artistic ideas. They want all the admiration for this supposedly innovative approach, but then they're hedging (and not just financially, though also that, but artistically.)