The Wu-Tang Clan and The World's Most Exclusive Album
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
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.
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...
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.
So, in that sense, I'm not sure that it's "wrong" - unless it's intentionally wrong, which it may be.
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.
It's actually quite recent (~100 years) to have framed oil on canvas in galleries for people to look at them.
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."
That's my prediction, at least.
The irony being that the Wu-Tang Clan probably earned more money than all those artists combined.
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.