Hacker News Reader

Comment by sutterbomb | Hacker News Reader

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]

View on HN

I don't even listen to Wu-Tang, but I think this is awesome. This is creative and interesting. People like myself who would otherwise never read or think about Wu-Tang are pondering how this will work and what the implications (if any) will be. That's awesome.

> and is a piece of performance art in its own right

Very much so. Excellent point.

If you're unfamiliar with Wu-Tang you may enjoy this video which is GZA rhyming about the big bang. Wu-Tang is pretty much the opposite of what the stereotype about rap culture is. They are intelligent and try to spread positivity in the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajs48XRlOqc

"Wu Tang is for the children."

Also, aint nuthing ta fuck wit

>Wu-Tang is pretty much the opposite of what the stereotype about rap culture is

As a die hard rap and Wu fan I would just like to say that very few artists actually fall into that stereotype. There's no "rap culture". Rap is about expression, and it happens to express different things when made by different people.

As a die hard rap fan as well, I would say the vast majority of artists fall into that stereotype.

I love rap, but even I have to admit that a lot of rap lyrics are dumb and offensive, and definitely play into the hands of those who talk about "rap culture" (I think Boondocks does a pretty good job of showing this by the way).

IMO the majority of artists that are positioning themselves as "rappers" are actually pop artists, coming straight from the assembly line of the big music publishers. (also truhead speaking here)

Not a big Wu fan, but I'm die hard hip hop fan also.

Pretty much everyone in the mainstream falls into exactly that category. Macklemore probably the exception to the rule at the moment.

Compare with the underground artists like Atmosphere, Brother Ali, Immortal Technique, Shad, Jurassic 5, Blackalicious etc.

They are worlds apart! It's such a shame that hip hop has ben positioned as an almost antithesis of intelligent music in the public eye, when it started out as music with a message (much of the underground still has that ethos). It's so bad that I usually have to justify my music choices to people who know no better "why would you listen to that shit? - nothing but bitches and ho's".

That's why I consider "rap" (bad, commercial) and "hip hop" (good, art) to be two completely different types of music even though they're extremely closely related.

Compare Kanye West and Brother Ali to see one example of the difference.

EDIT: Switched to a better example of hip hop. Also, someone downvoted me for making a distinction? Strange.

I certainly remember hearing tons of intelligent, political, and not particularly "commercial" stuff called "rap" on the radio in the early '80s....

I'm surprised at the fixed sale price.

They should have Dutch auctioned it if there was sufficient interest from the big labels.

The problem with this is that there is not only one framing, "music as art" but also another, "art as collectible good", which is the most banal meaning one can attribute to art.

Reproducibility has never detracted anything from important pieces of art, and has nothing to do with their artistical value; everyone has painting reproductions in their home, and that doesn't make the painting* less valuable.

For this reason, while there are certainly valuable discussions on generic terms, this remains a pure marketing stunt (or, a banal pseudo-intellectual statement).

*=of course, here there could be a debate about the value of the concept related to the original physical copy and its reproductions.

Jean Michel Jarre did this in 1983, I highly doubt that they were not aware of that when doing this. Musique Pour Supermarche is definitely not he best he made but the mechanism was exactly identical.

this was my opinion. this is art/ marketing... brilliant, brilliant 'artketing'

If you look at their history, RZA is brilliant at marketing.

Agreed. The guy really seems to "get" things, which is always great to hear about an artist whose work you enjoy.

In addition to being a great album Wu-Tang Clan's album Forever was the first CD to offer multimedia when inserted into a PC! Not to say "enhanced CDs" are the pinnacle of technology, but it's an example of them being forward looking, so their willingness to try new things doesn't surprise me.

I love it for the challenge it will offer to those would find a way to release it online ahead of schedule.

Absolutely highlights "record label" adds no value. Here they are being outsourced. The promo work is being turned on its head (buy promo to sell record vs give away record and get the promo). If it works it seems brilliant.

One instance of a popular band with a single non-label success does not demonstrate adequately that labels add no value.

This actually isn't original, its a copycat tactic (Jay-Z did it first)#. The "record" in record lable being short for "recording". Here, they are giving away the reproduction rights under the expectation that the owner will (trivially) reproduce and distribute the "records" for token economics. The new "middleman" will be happy to do this <on their own dime> and basically give the recordings away. This will make sense because the promotional value of the giveaways will exceed the trivial reproduction costs. That is a pretty effective demonstration. Lastly, lets say they get 5 million dollars. That would be the equivalent of doing a 5x (million) platinum record sales, but with still better economics (less rip offs) on the production costs. So in this model, 1 sale to an "art market" is better than 5 million sales through a record label for the artist. And the consumers get basically free product (as swag). That seems like a win/win. That was the model upon which this structure was originally premised.

[For the downvoters: Read the Forbes article from 6 days ago, below]

# http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/03/26/...]

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.

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.

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

This story is just another piece of the wu's marketing genius. Could it be true? Sure, so they may as well have you think about it - argue the truth, etc. Mystery shrouds the shaolin sword.

Wu-Tang are one of the few music acts to really get that it's about entertainment.

perfect response, I shouldn't believe everything I hear. killa beez on a swarm.

Your friend should stop smoking so much weed.

"Quick" doesn't seem to apply to how long this has reportedly been in the works, how long the pre-sale tour involving "performances" at various museums will take, etc.

From what I've seen over the years, Wu-Tang has a propensity for such self-aggrandizement (and I mean that as a complement). I can certainly see them doing this project without ulterior fear-driven motivation.

Not saying your version isn't true, but applying Occam's Razor from my humble perspective. RZA having an epiphany of "hey, let's do a full blown album and sell one copy!" seems entirely fitting.

I think you got Wu tang mixed up with another group. Wu tang started getting popular in the 1990s. They have gone international since then, and their individual members have had very successful solo careers. What inner city club do they need protection from? Are you talking about the legendary hip-hop group Wu Tang because I think or your friend is mistaken?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com