March 27, 2014

What Does Wu-Tang's Single-Copy Release of Their Secret Album Say About the Value of Art?

One of the most influential musical groups of the last 20 years, the Wu-Tang Clan, recently announced the release of their secretly produced album, The Wu -- Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, which will surely be one of a kind -- literally. The hip-hop group has decided to release a single copy of the double album with a purchase price somewhere in the millions, hoping to shine a light on the value that is put on art and intellectual property -- a hot button topic that has been in the mouths of many filmmakers since the proliferation of VOD. How much is art really worth in the modern age, and who stands to lose or gain as the value goes up or down? Join the discussion after the break.

Let me be completely honest -- I haven't even thought of Wu-Tang since 2000 when I bought their album The W with my birthday money (I probably listened to "Gravel Pit" a bazillion times). But this unique distribution tactic they're doing for Once Upon a Time in Shaolin has piqued my interest not just as a fan, but as a filmmaker.

Essentially, Wu-Tang's new album will be the first ever modern private music album. There will only be one copy made, which will then be encased in an engraved silver and nickel box, masterfully crafted by British-Moroccan artist Yahya. The album, including the master recording and the producer’s publishing rights, will go for millions to some lucky superfan, collector, company, or Tad -- or the anti-Tads (more on that later). Whomever it goes to, which is just as much a concerning topic as the album's distribution model, it's important to first understand the group's intentions behind this privatized release. Group member RZA explains the heart of their motivation in this Forbes article:

The idea that music is art has been something we advocated for years -- And yet its doesn’t receive the same treatment as art in the sense of the value of what it is, especially nowadays when it’s been devalued and diminished to almost the point that it has to be given away for free.

Music and film are definitely art forms, but the pieces that come out of them are definitely not valued monetarily as much as pieces created in the plastic arts (paintings, sculptures, etc.). Many independent filmmakers can relate to RZA's sentiment. We put in a lot of work to create films, music, etc., that people enjoy (maybe not a lot of people, but people nonetheless), and it's disheartening to think that, in some ways, our art is -- worthless. I mean, it's no secret that lots of people rip off creative content through torrent sites and have been getting thousands of songs and hundreds of movies for free for years. And even if you're not participating in that, DVDs are so inexpensive that they're practically being given away. I mean, I do admit I love sifting through movies in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart, but I do feel a small tinge of sadness as I gorilla-arm through them, thinking, "Is this what you've been reduced to, Casablanca? Seemingly discarded into a metal cage that regulates your purchase price, where your plastic case gets scuffed by old Westerns and Madea movies?"

But maybe that's where we're at now. Movies aren't bought and sold based on quality of the art (which is why I've found plenty of classic and cult films sandwiched between the dregs of cinema in those damn $5 bins). If there are thousands of copies of Citizen Kane, why would anyone pay top dollar to buy a copy? What Wu-Tang is trying to do is take away the availability of the content to up its value. Though they will "tour" it through museums, galleries, and other venues, giving fans an opportunity to hear it through headphones for something around $50 a pop, the value of the album goes up because of its rarity.

But who, in the end, does this serve? Wu-Tang? The major label that may swoop in and purchase it and sell it like a normal record? Maybe. Depending on the final price of the album, the group could probably make much more going through traditional channels, and the final buyer may just be a really, really rich fan with no plans to monetize the album. But, I'll tell you who it doesn't serve -- fans -- or as we'll call them in this article, and this article alone, anti-Tads. A group of fans have banded together to start an Indiegogo campaign to raise $1M to purchase Once Upon a Time in Shaolin before "some rich asshat [they've] codenamed Tad" gets his hands on it first.

Wu tang style-off

See, the Wu-Tang Clan not only stands to lose money with this distribution model, but they may also alienate their fans. But, that's not the group's main concern for this record -- gaining money and pleasing fans -- nor does this seem like an attempt to revolutionize music distribution. This is strictly about making a statement about art and its value, one that filmmakers should definitely hear and flesh out themselves. One of the album's main producers, Tarik “Cilvaringz” Azzougarh, says this about their decision to distribute a single album:

I know it sounds crazy. It might totally flop, and we might be completely ridiculed. But the essence and core of our ideas is to inspire creation and originality and debate, and save the music album from dying.

For a quite a while now, film experts and enthusiasts have compared the film industry to the music industry, even anticipating that film distribution will follow that of music -- which it did with VOD. This nagging concern among filmmakers is brought to the forefront once again: "Will my film have any value as time goes on, or will my film just be another top-seeded torrent?" Is our art priceless? Worthless? Worth exactly 8 bucks at the ticket window? Wu-Tang isn't necessarily calling for a change in business, but for a change in perspective. And honestly -- from this view -- I can see all of the songs and movies that changed my life.

However, if these pieces of art are truly worth hundreds, thousands, millions of dollars, and are therefore not as accessible to those with lesser means, what impact could they truly make? If a film plays and no one can afford to see it --

What do you think of Wu-Tang's distribution plan for Once Upon a Time in ShaolinWhat is the value of art? Can you provide a different perspective on this issue? There are virtually endless points to be made on this topic, so fire away in the comments below.

Links:

Your Comment

43 Comments

I really can't wait to see what happens with this.

One of my good friends runs an independent record label, and does quite a few limited and hand-numbered releases. It's been a good strategy for him because nearly every release becomes a rare and special thing. What Wu-Tang is doing seems like the ultimate expression of this line of thinking, and it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

March 28, 2014 at 12:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

Other than sentimental value from a fan I see no significant value unless you really love the artist

Bottom line this move is nothing more than a kick starter meet the artist gift , its a good ideal but only will be as strong as the artist presence

Prince could do this

Martin Scorsese could do this

Vanilla ice on the other hand would have better luck with eBay

March 28, 2014 at 1:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
jaye

This was actually already done in 2013. Nipsey Hussle, a very good LA rapper charged $100 a piece for his mixtape that would be capped at 1,000 CD's. Jay-Z respected the idea so much that he bought 100 copies.

A rapper who is more well known on the West Coast beat everyone to this idea in a landscape where the majority of music fans, no longer buy physical copies. On the other side you have Wu-Tang, who are icons and have had long storied careers, some members are dead, you have one final member in Ghostface, who keeps the torch lit for the entire team. That's lot's of pressure to deliver on this kind of hype, when RZA hasn't been at his best the last few years (too much time filming Kung Fu films)

In the end I think it will come to a bidding war between Elon Musk/ Zuckerberg/ & one of the dudes from the Shark Tank

March 30, 2014 at 8:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
BobitoDigital

Totally agree man. Very interesting.

March 30, 2014 at 12:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

RZA's always seemed to have a unique insight for business opportunities. When Wu-Tang first signed to Loud, it was originally a couple hundred thousand for all 9 of them, which wasn't all that lucrative of a deal. So RZA made a deal with them to sign the Wu-Tang Clan to Loud, and each member themselves have separate deals with other labels. It was a different, somewhat risky proposal, but it worked quite successfully. I think this might be another one of those instances. All art is unique, but when you make it so that the piece is a tangible one of a kind, and given the legacy and influence of the Wu, and the Yahya designed chest, not to mention the publishing rights, it's a piece of history. This will likely be their last album, depending on when A Better Tomorrow is released of course, so it's kind of a nice way to cap it all off. Jay-Z's Samsung deal was exclusive, but it was pretty much just strictly digital, and that's why I believe it wasn't a big success. There's just something more about having a unique physical piece of art these days, and RZA's obviously recognized this returning niche in a way nobody else has yet (to a degree). I don't think every project should be released on a scale like this, but it may give way to more creative and meaningful distribution methods in the future. Maybe a one of a kind masters or limited number reels for certain films or something. I do hope though that whoever ends up purchasing Once Upon A Time In Shaolin isn't stingy on releasing it, Wu-Tang is for the children.

March 28, 2014 at 12:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Christian Davis

The thing about releasing it, for the person that buy's the thing, is that every time he lets someone else hear it, it reduces in value and increases the risk for someone to make a copy and release it to the masses online, thus making his investment worthless. The value of a singular piece is that nobody else can hear it, except for the person who buys it. Its so easy to digitalize something and throw it up online that it'd be dangerous to share the thing with anyone.

March 28, 2014 at 2:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Anthony Chen

If you have the kind of money it will take to buy it, do you really care about its monetary value? And regardless of it being played for others' ears or copied, there would still only be one true original. Do you believe a Picasso depreciates every time a museum patron gazes at it? I would also hope that the person who gets it does share it, even if it's just for them to be able to say "I gave the world Once Upon a Time in Shaolin"

March 28, 2014 at 4:03AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

"Three Studies of Lucian Freud" sold in November for $142 million, a new record in the art world. Then it came to the Portland Art Museum, and will be there for two more days. Photographs and video are allowed. You can walk up and view it from 18 inches away. Some people like it; some don't. Value is in the eye (and wallet) of the beholder.

March 28, 2014 at 12:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
jim

Whoever buys it will become nearly famous overnight and go down in the archives of music history.

April 4, 2014 at 1:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Horus

"A group of fans" could be the artists themselves. Why fans will come up with such inflated figure from the start? it seems a marketing sum of money, not something coming from average folks. Going Indiegogo, creating hype to increase awareness, avoid the labels, pay studio time and then tour. it is not a far fetched possibility...

March 28, 2014 at 2:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Agni Ortiz

Since the invention of the electronic music - technically, in the 1930's with the introduction of the electric guitar and a power amplifier ... legitimately, post-WWII with the design of the first Fender amps and high quality affordable guitars like Telecaster, Stratocaster and Precision Bass - the music business has been about reaching the unwashed masses. Top artists managed to pleased both the wide audiences and the highly selective niche. Which is why this "one album-one copy" sounds like a gimmick.
.
PS. And, by the way, which one is Wu?

March 28, 2014 at 3:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
DLD

This seems backwards to me. What we are dealing with here is two different concepts of what art is. The seminal essay,"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by the German cultural critic Walter Benjamin written in 1936 talks about this. It specifically cites how mechanical reproduction (films and movies which are perfectly reproduced, and lack a unique presence in time and space, unlike other forms of art like a sculpture or a painting which are unique in time and space) changed the very notion of what art was, transforming it from art that accentuated "Cult Value" to art that accentuated "Exhibition Value".

The first: "Cult Value", was present in early art. Benjamin states, "Artistic production begins with figures in the service of a cult. One may assume that it was more important for these figures to be present than to be seen". The elk depicted by Stone Age man on the walls of his cave was not meant to be exhibited, this was not its purpose, but rather it was meant rather as an instrument of magic, with its main purpose being that was it was meant for the spirits". He also states that, "Cult Value as such tends today, it would seem, to keep the artwork out of sight: certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella or certain images of the Madonna remained covered nearly all year round".

What mechanical reproduction helped to do is to free us from specific artistic practices like the service of ritual, and which instead placed emphasis on its "Exhibition Value". Benjamin states, "Today, through the absolute emphasis placed on its exhibition value, the work of art becomes a construct with quite new functions".

Ultimately, why go back to this old notion of art? Before only a select few with incredible wealth and power would ever be able to be set eyes on a sculpture like the ancient statue of Venus. This old notion of art placed emphasis on its presence rather than its exhibition. Mechanical reproduction which occurred in the early 20th century, allowed for a painting to be seen by everybody through reproductions, and changed the emphasis of art to exhibition. Today, we are living in an age of greater inter-connectivity, with platforms like Twitter, and Facebook that call for greater democracy. Why go back to this extremely old notion of art that is anti-democracy, and based in ritual?

March 28, 2014 at 4:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Angel Martinez

Illuminating and beautifully put. Allow me to use your points to offer another perspective. I think (and I believe this is what Renee's saying in the article) the WTC's goal with this release is to re-emphasise the value of exhibited art by reminding us of the exclusively Cult Value art once had. Their point, I think, is not that Exhibition Value should be abandoned but that ease of reproduction has taken it too far, rendering both Cult Value and Exhibition Value worthless for pieces of art that are primarily exhibited. By making a piece of usually exhibited, easily-reproduced art an object of Cult Value, they remind us that art should be valued and in some way paid for regardless of its ease of reproduction.

March 28, 2014 at 6:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

Benjamin’s essay was a stepping stone in the understanding of Art. Earlier Ezra Pound had declared that the artists were the antennae of the race. What is interesting about
Pound and the other “High Moderns” the men of 1914 as well as Benjamin is that they might be well described as the fish in the water- unaware fully of their environment. They were immersed in a changing dynamic, the on coming of the electric environment, however with eyes wide half-shut. They witnessed the downing of the tools of the Industrial Age with I think a shudder. The shudder of the earth moving below one’s feet. One example of the distant early warning antennae is Dickens’ Great Expectations. His opening pages have been described as a shot list. Read them and then watch Lean’s 1946 opening shots. (Both available free on the web.)

Around the same time that Lean is making his Great Expectations there was a new critical awareness being presented by Marshall McLuhan. His 1969 Playboy interview concludes “I expect to see the coming decades transform the planet into an art form; the new man, linked in a cosmic harmony that transcends time and space, will sensuously caress and mold and pattern every facet of the terrestrial artifact as if it were a work of art, and man himself will become an organic art form.” He acutely observed that when
Sputnik was put into orbit the whole planet was transformed into a spaceship and we (human race) all became crew. In order to survive each person had to create an
environment for his/her self as an artistic endeavor.

The McLuhan thesis says then that every human activity must become an art work. In that light I take the Wu-Tang and their project as the art object not the thing that is for sale.

March 28, 2014 at 9:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

"Today, we are living in an age of greater inter-connectivity, with platforms like Twitter, and Facebook that call for greater democracy."

They call for greater democracy and also for greater piracy and it's bringing us to a point where we don't value anymore the effort and work behind an album, film or piece of art.

Wu-Tang's making a beautiful, bold statement: do we really want to fall back to the sponsors/mecenas system where art is in the hands of a rich minority?

March 28, 2014 at 6:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Álex Montoya

+1

Well said

March 29, 2014 at 6:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
jaye

Being a old guy and a teenager in the late 60's and early70's, We all ways paid for music and to see a new movie. When a band we like came out with a new album. We ran down to the record shop and buy it. It was on vinyl and not compress down like CD's. I bought my first film of Vimeo ON Demand a few weeks ago. I was surprise to see how compress it was encoded at 5MB/s. After seeing how compress it was I don't think I will buy anymore from Vimeo. Digital has change the world I don't mine paying for music or films but don't sale me stuff so compress down.

March 28, 2014 at 8:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Michael Bishop

5Mbps-10 Mbps is the average broadband speed in the US right now. Vimeo should be offering other, higher quality options but they are not. Once 4K becomes more popular and broadband speeds exceed 30Mbps-50Mbps, every streamer should technically be able to offer a pretty decent 4K content. It'll still be compressed obviously, even on the 4K Blu-Ray.

March 28, 2014 at 9:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
DLD

Most 1080p videos on Vimeo use 3.75Mbps for the video part, better than YouTube at 2.5Mbps. Seems they did push it up for a paid video, at least, and I suspect they can't push it higher without getting complaints from those with slower connections.

March 28, 2014 at 8:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

From what I have read in a bunch of places, YouTube is 1 Mbps for 480p, 2 Mbps for 720p, 3.5 Mbps for 1080p. I have no info on 1440p (aka 2.5K) but it has to be somewhere around 7 Mbps. 2160 (aka 4K) requires too much bandwidth for me ( 8-8.5Mbps at home) and buffers horribly. 1440 usually plays fine. Vimeo should offer a similar tier based system for people to choose from, especially given its pro shooter orientation.

March 29, 2014 at 2:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

Maybe Bach or Mozart or Louie Armstrong or Prince shouldn't have released their work to the public. What a mistake they made

I think they are complaining because now instead of earning millions of dollars, instead they are earning thousands of dollars. Poor guys, they are starving like some people in Afghanistan or Guatemala.

They think their enemy is the public, thanks to the internet revolution (I'm sure thousands of people shared a Prince's LP with other friends recording a cassette. That was not forbidden) Their real enemy are the big corporations who want the money for themselves, not the artist. The real cost to produce a CD is nothing compared to what we have to pay. Corporations want the biggest profit of their product, and they don't share their profits with the artist. That's why some artists left the big companies like sony etc to make their own disc record companies

March 28, 2014 at 8:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

at this point wu-tang's current market's value is not what it was in the mid 90's.
good luck with that.
The ultimate price is going to be an embarrassment at the end.
Or we might get a publiclly skewed number announced.
The whole point of "Art" is to share.
without that it's simply masterbation.

March 28, 2014 at 9:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

One thing that is being overlooked is that the music industry is larger and more profitable than ever before... How is this possible? Like so many things, the means of distribution has changed (change is always disruptive to those who don't benefit). Look at itunes and amazon, they aren't giving things away... in fact, now, when I buy an album, it costs about the same but i dont get anything physical.
Secondly, the means of creation have drastically changed. I don't use negatives to shoot a wedding and musicians don't record on tapes... creation costs are way down, opportunity is up. I like the stunt that Wu-Tang is pulling because the said goal is art but it just feels like they are holding onto the past... and money is somehow involved. If it was pure, then why make the barrier be money?

March 28, 2014 at 10:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Mike Ford

Just like the rest of the world, the middle has dropped out of the music industry. The top artists got richer as the other 99% of the industry fights over facebook likes.

March 28, 2014 at 12:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Frank

So will they also do an iTunes release :)
will they ever release the songs in public?

March 28, 2014 at 1:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Archie

No, they won't. They will become property of the guy who buys them.

March 28, 2014 at 7:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Álex Montoya

However creative, this is a clear sign of the times. Filmmakers need to become aware that we are in a state of stealing. A devaluing of goods because of the "ease of get". This move by The Wu-Tang will go down in history. I'm still on the fence about how I feel about it. I think the article brought up some great points and also should make us think about what are we really doing with our films after we have fought with blood, sweat and tears to make them happen.

March 28, 2014 at 2:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Mr. Jay

"Secretly produced album" I'd bet they made years ago. They have thousands of songs they made over their career, im betting this album is just a compilation of their B sides, stuff no one ever heard.. They figure let some mega rich Saudi or dot com guy throw them some money. It's actually a brillIant scheme. If they get 2 suckers, who knows maybe 10 or even 20 it's like free money. Go Wu! I'll catch it on the down side.

March 28, 2014 at 3:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

This is a brilliant move and gets to the heart of how we tend to value things (even relationships). That is to say controlling the supply and therefore artificially increasing demand (and our sense of value for that thing/relationship). This is what makes gold gold. This is why diamonds are expensive. This is what makes a popular kid In high school popular. This is why digital media's perceived value has plummeted. It runs like water out of a tap now. Control the supply for something that is in demand and you will watch the perceived value soar.

March 28, 2014 at 6:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Sean

They're controlling the supply - as is their wont - and thereby raising the price. But the same lowers the demand, which is something they also understand. How supply combines with demand to effect the total revenues is anyone's guess. The unpredictability to what they are doing lays in the arbitrary value of art. At least, in the physical realm, a buyer can discern the difference between, let's say, Koenigsegg and Toyota Camry. For a known work of art, the value still may be arbitrary but its quality is not. With this, you're basically buying a pig in a poke.

March 28, 2014 at 10:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

Ifail to see why they're doing this. It actually makes no sense to me, at all. Of course, just one copy, is worth millions. It probably costs close to that in production alone. Similar to how pharmaceuticals work - the first pill costs them $1 billion R&D, the second pill costs them $0.00002 cents to produce.

Same thing with music. Of course the gold master costs millions and is worth millions. But do you want one person to hear it or do you want millions? Hence why you sell it at a cheaper costs.

They obviously get how supply and demand work, but I still fail to see their point here.

March 28, 2014 at 8:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jack Marchetti

That's the whole point. Millions will not hear it. The ones that will hear it will be just as many as the ones who go to museums to see a Painting. The only difference when and if you hear it it will be the one and only time, unless of course you visit the museum multiple times during it's visit to your town.

March 29, 2014 at 10:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
PayDro

It's not quite a new thing — only 20 copies of The Cremaster Cycle were sold on DVD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cremaster_Cycle

The KLF did some crazy things with their albums (deleting their back catalogue) and profits (burning them) too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klf

In all, though, it's of little use if nobody can experience it. The cost of distribution dropped to near-zero, and the response is not to distribute?

March 28, 2014 at 8:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Genius Idea. Hope it goes as planned. Think of your Favorite song. Imagine Listening to it only once. Every second it was playing you would be experiencing it very differently knowing it would be the only time. I do believe someone will find a way to record it on one of those visits and it will leak out like everything does, and probably even faster because it was supposed to remain rare.

March 29, 2014 at 10:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
PayDro

I thought the point of music was so people could experience it. It seems wu has turned their backs on the very people who made them rich in he first place - their fans. As an aspiring filmmaker and a technician who works in the film industry I have accepted that I might never make millions off my art. For too long people who were privileged enough to earn a living by working in the creative industries made too much money. There is so much great music on the internet right now. When I find such music, I usually make a point of seeing the band live, which means I usually buy a cd and swag too.
I find it insulting that wu calls their music art when they are overly concerned with its monetary value. These old crackheads should get day jobs. The most artistic thing about the album is the case it comes in.
If Mozart knew he could have platform where the whole world could hear his music for free I think he'd jump a the chance. And If he ever came to my town, I'd be first up in the t-shirt line at his show.

March 30, 2014 at 2:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
marmar

Ha ha ha agreed guess I should of read rather than rant.

April 4, 2014 at 7:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

April 4, 2014 at 5:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
tuomo

Too keep it simple... The value of art isn't the monetary means but rather the influence. I've never really witnessed an artist make anything breathtaking once they become it (famous, rich, they made it) or how ever you want to call it. It's been those who are just driven to do what they do best and keep on doing the best that keep producing masterpieces. The directors you know but to list them is a ridiculous thing as for me the artist that influence me don't for you. It's not the money, it's the awe and feel you leave in the hearts and the intrigue you leave in the minds. That to me is what make people Into followers, that is why they will come back. The moment you lose that then it could be over. That's why they get the big budgets, they made something from nothing. In my mind variety is selfishness, that one rich prick will hold onto the masterpieces of art and charge you to see a 14th century panting is ludicrous in my mind. Really who fucking cares, what about the paintings now? The emotions now? Their worth more to the ones who can feel the modern artist pain or happiness of nowadays. Anyways I'm sure I'm out of room. Peace and will be interesting to see this outcome.

April 4, 2014 at 7:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

It started with disco. I do not know if i ever heard Wu. It continues to amuse me mildly that your generation is like The Matrix asleep, unconscious consumerism. Eating shit with your fingers, thinking it sushi. ~ Still.
The Magic Christian.

April 5, 2014 at 1:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Babylon Slim

It is my understanding they they will be putting a digital copy out for free online. Thus making any attempte for a major to try to buy the copy and distribut it pointless.

I think wu tang is taking a page out of a bother artists boom. Nippsy hustle sold his album for one day only in a pop up shop last year. He sold it for $100 an piece. Jay z got wind of it and bought $100 of them. I think it's a very risky yet highly rewarding tactic they have implemented.

April 5, 2014 at 1:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Martin

FYI update: according to Ken Lewis (mixed the only copy of this album) someone has a bid out for $5 mil so far. It's on a museum tour where apparently people can bid too. I wouldn't be shocked if it went for 10.

April 19, 2014 at 10:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

This is really a simple application of the Supply and Demand rule. Every other thought behind it is based on musings of that simple rule of human nature. Art, food, gasoline, air, water, sex, it's value is simply a matter of supply and demand regulating price. Lower supply = higher demand = higher price. Higher supply = lower demand = lower price. Quality is based on quantity. The Quantity of higher amount thought and talent and time put into the content raises the Quality and of course the inverse is true. There is nothing new under the sun.

May 3, 2014 at 9:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

This single copy strategy really takes the saying "less is more" to another level. It also shows the humongous gap between the Wu Tang Clan and most other artists. The gap in the value of creativity, thought and imagination. Wu Tang has shown the world what is wrong with it, the loss of the individual. By refusing to follow the system and break the cycle they have shown the world how to escape the Matrix. Kudos

July 24, 2014 at 7:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
fone