Wu-Tang Clan - Once Upon a time in Shaolin

[Lane Visitor]

all opinion/speculation on the musical content of wu-tang's new album aside, this is a pretty awesome idea imo, and a clear indicator that even successful artists are scratching at the bottom of the barrel to find ways to stand out and sell records.

 

There are so many amazing artists and so much incredible music available not only at fingertips reach, but coming in to us at all channels on a regular basis, and 99.99999% of it will never have a chance of being discovered or simply streamed more than a handful of times, let alone bought.

 

And so I'm tired of endlessly hearing the:

 

"well, artists just need to adapt to new models outside of recorded music if they want to make money",

 

or:

 

"well, they just have to have to have really good live shows now and make their money from touring",

 

or the worst:

 

"it's actually exciting, cuz it's a revolution, and now finally music will return to where it came from- gypsy folk bands, troubadours, and orchestras touring around playing real organic music, travelling from town to town"

 

not that that those first two points aren't incorrect, it's just that "hey buddy, wait to state the obvious while you sit down at your computer listening to spotify, because you expect your entertainment, ready-made, ready-found, and not only for free but AD-free in high quality format."

 

i for one, think what wu-tang is doing here is inspiring to say the least. (:

Edited March 28, 2014 by Lane Visitor

[Lane Visitor]

Also, on a further tangent rant... (Run-on spolier)

Corporations like Netflix, Spotify, Grooveshark, and the gazillion other streaming channels that currently exist and will pop up where filmmakers, musicians, producers, engineers, actors, screen-writers, etc have no other choice but to be experienced through will be responsible for reducing those (mostly indie) artists' already meager paychecks if any at all until art istelf becomes nothing but a hobby for the rich and/or an undying (and mostly unrealistic) fantasy for the working, slaving visionaries that will never be rewarded for their visions unless they win the lottery.
Of course, at this point, one may argue, that this scenario already exists as success in arts/music entertainment, and that this industry has essentially always been equivalent to "winning the lottery" already, but I'd suggest checking out David Lowery's brilliant letter to an NPR intern if you haven't yet. Great stuff. http://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

But what disturbs me, and I'm not bitter or nostalgic or stuck in the 90's physical copy era or anything, is that the very technology, gadgetry and channels made by Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, etc that's made to experience what us content-creators make, are selling in the trillions and happily to fanboys from here to Jupiter. The same people who tell me "Hey man, chill- it's just the way of the future.. The 'industry' fucked itself with over-priced CDs from Sam Goody, so now in the information age where everything can now finally be shared (hooray) and uploaded onto servers and available at the bat of an eye, we just have to accept that artistic content is going to be cheapened.".. "Artists just have to find new ways and create new streams of revenue."

No. Struggling indie artists should not be "expected" to expand their already-extremely diverse pool of forced-talents (writers, graphic designers, promoters, social media pros, performers, tour managers, stage directors, music video-creators, etc etc etc etc), into even more realms of entrepreneurial brilliance all in between sleep and our 9-5 office jobs. We shouldn't now also have to be:

reality tv show producers, kickstarter/fundraising professionals, charity/non-profit event promoters, reputation management/SEO gurus, ad agency owners, builders, electric engineers...... and on and on)

Not that it's not great to have a wide array of skills and life experience. If I had the time and money, yes- I'd learn all of these things and get them down to a tee and run my own empire with multiple employees.

But when current indie artists are expected to become each and every one of these "players", they have less time, energy, funds, and focus to create the very thing they are here to do- make music. When unsigned indie artists are forced to fill all of these roles, with the added knowledge their album they are making will be less than a shot in the dark, and that even great indie success and the backing of a label will get them to point zero as far as making a living off of creating songs (and we're not talking about playing live here), then what, i ask, what incentive will there be to make great imaginative, lush, well-produced, well-arranged, beautiful recordings? At this point, any aspiring musical artist would be better advised to simply train for American Idol or start an acoustic free form jam band.

Sorry for the bickering.. and this coming from an admitted futurist, optimist, and digital-space loving music artist/web marketing person. But there seems to something very wrong with the way the artist, the album, single, ep, and recorded music are being looked at by tech innovators/corporations and us consumers alike.

 

In other words, Friendly Foil and I shouldn't have to (and would never even know where to start or get the backing money) be museum curators and art gallery PR reps to promote our music. It's audio, not a painting.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Lane Visitor

[andihow]

calling it now: this is a pr stunt. you will be able to buy this record on itunes in 2015.

[Guest M360]

Of course. No way they let that revenue opportunity fall into the gravel pit

[doublename]

I fear the museum tour will bomb atomically

[jules]

calling it now: this is a pr stunt. you will be able to buy this record on itunes in 2015.

bong bong

[Friendly Foil]

Lane Visitor just overloaded this thread with facts.

[soma333]

 

btw: are you guys aware that rza invented serato?

 

http://youtu.be/TXsYXMqw4Zc

"When you get a patent, you gotta patent in over 1000 countries."

 

Over 1000 countries.

Dude where's that Replikator I needz it!

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

Even if it does eventually get leaked, there are going to be some museums that will now be at an advantage when it comes to street knowledge.

[Mellow U]

Lane Visitor, I don't know you, but I think I love you.

[spptrl alt del]

what incentive will there be to make great imaginative, lush, well-produced, well-arranged, beautiful recordings?

 

uhh, to make a good piece of work?

 

making "art" with the goal of financial rewards is a fucking joke. Everybody and their fucking mom makes "art" nowadays, and the percentage of quality product out there is deteriorating exponentially. Do you think every asshole deserves special treatment for their artistic motivations?

[spptrl alt del]

There are so many amazing artists and so much incredible music available not only at fingertips reach, but coming in to us at all channels on a regular basis, and 99.99999% of it will never have a chance of being discovered or simply streamed more than a handful of times, let alone bought.

 

You can take comfort in the fact that quality shit will persevere and gain exposure simply by the fact that it is of high quality, or 'classic', and that while the artist may or may not be rewarded immediately, the work will probably stand the test of time. Or it's probable that 'just' compensation is a thing of the past, because culture is now saturated with a shit ton of amateur media, of varying quality, and expecting any sort of substantial reward for your work is simply unrealistic.

[Mellow U]

 

There are so many amazing artists and so much incredible music available not only at fingertips reach, but coming in to us at all channels on a regular basis, and 99.99999% of it will never have a chance of being discovered or simply streamed more than a handful of times, let alone bought.

 

You can take comfort in the fact that quality shit will persevere and gain exposure simply by the fact that it is of high quality, or 'classic', and that while the artist may or may not be rewarded immediately, the work will probably stand the test of time. Or it's probable that 'just' compensation is a thing of the past, because culture is now saturated with a shit ton of amateur media, of varying quality, and expecting any sort of substantial reward for your work is simply unrealistic.

 

 

Sure, as long as the internet is around, but that's what's ultimately corrupted everything to the point it's at now. Take away the luxuries, legal or otherwise, that the internet affords you when it comes to experiencing any form of media based art - suppose it was back to a simple system of "If you cannot afford to buy something, you do not get to listen to it". If this were to come to pass, listeners would be forced once again to learn the real value of a dollar. There simply wouldn't be room in nearly anyone's budget for buying all the music and movies they might otherwise download. This would, I think, level the playing field with regard to "quality" work versus the flavor of the week gimmicky bullshit, like some guy doing a dubstep remix in Garageband, or something. In the end, some level (or levels) of quality would win out, win over consumers and their money, and the creators behind such works would be given adequate means to continue forward. Art really *would* be judged on its own terms, and not in the superficial way that it is now.

 

People have been given a free backdoor for so long that they consider it a right, not a luxury, and they're able to rationalize theft and cultural deflation as "exposure" and "support", when instead, we've simply degenerated into a mindless, data-hoarding mass that only responds to the BRIGHTEST, LOUDEST and BIGGEST things, as perfectly evidenced by bands like The Flaming Lips doing 24 hour songs or Wu Tang releasing Once Upon A Time In Shaolin the way they are. The gimmick and PR stunt has become an attempt at survival, and so essentially, a lot of the ridiculous things people used to say were "selling out" are now par for the course, for any musician, just to get by, because a lot of people can't deal with the fact that artists need money to live and continue making good things.

 

So anyway, if things were to change to a system that didn't parasitically leech off of the people creating the content, I think everyone would be a lot happier. There would be a standard for music again, even if it were a magazine rating system or the stupid Top 40 - something that represented an embodiment of doing a job well enough to convince lots of people to hand out hard earned money to hear it.

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

People have been given a free backdoor for so long that they consider it a right, not a luxury, and they're able to rationalize theft and cultural deflation as "exposure" and "support", when instead, we've simply degenerated into a mindless, data-hoarding mass that only responds to the BRIGHTEST, LOUDEST and BIGGEST things, as perfectly evidenced by bands like The Flaming Lips doing 24 hour songs or Wu Tang releasing Once Upon A Time In Shaolin the way they are. The gimmick and PR stunt has become an attempt at survival, and so essentially, a lot of the ridiculous things people used to say were "selling out" are now par for the course, for any musician, just to get by, because a lot of people can't deal with the fact that artists need money to live and continue making good things.

 

^

fucking this.

[Lane Visitor]

what incentive will there be to make great imaginative, lush, well-produced, well-arranged, beautiful recordings?

 

uhh, to make a good piece of work?

 

of course. but that wasn't my point. making art in a vacuum is making art. but when it comes to taking it seriously and pursuing a career, which will further expand one's talents, and truly make "good pieces of work" in a professional and sustaining manner, they need to be able to survive and in order for it to actually make a legit impact, it can't be only worked on for 2.5 hours a week every other week.

 

making "art" with the goal of financial rewards is a fucking joke. Everybody and their fucking mom makes "art" nowadays, and the percentage of quality product out there is deteriorating exponentially. Do you think every asshole deserves special treatment for their artistic motivations?

I know this is a popular sentiment in the indie music world, but i disagree whole heartedly that making art with the goal of financial rewards is a joke, (which is also an extreme simplification of the subject.) That's equivalent to saying "You don't need money to be happy". Because you're using THE goal, and not A goal. There's a difference.

Person 1- single goal: make money from music. strictly business. (and i dont think there are actually even many ppl out there with this. even dbags who make music virtually only to get money and girls still usually like music to an extent) = nothing wrong with that even, as long as they don't force feed me the terrible results of their "craft". I'm not judging ppl's goals. If they wanna look at making music strictly as a business, than so be it. More the better for the real artists who make good stuff, so they have less to compete against in terms of quality.

Person 2- dual goal (like most people id imagine): get fulfillment and either realistically OR hopefully make money (at some point) from creating music .... realistic. what I would imagine is 99% of the music-creators out there today.

Person 3- single goal: only get fulfillment from making music, with no desire to make money from it... no desire. no goal. we're not talking (it's a pipe dream in the back of their minds somewhere, we're talking they do NOT DESIRE to make money from it. at all. = A smaller minority, probably as many as the first type of person. pure hobbyists, jammers, experimenters. i have nothing but pure love for these folks. and frankly, they are the kinds of ppl i get along with the most. but i'd argue that many of these peeps still have a very small "what if one of my pieces someday could reach many people. would i turn down money offered for my music? no, i wouldnt".

No, I don't think every "artist" deserves special treatment. no one deserves special treatment, even great artists. every artist, good or not, must work hard to get exposure and then hopefully appreciation, if people feel it.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Lane Visitor

[Mellow U]

Yeah, exactly what I was going to say there too. There's a big difference between "making music for money" and "trying to make money with your music". I.e. the point of conception for the music is much, much different in the two cases.

 

And anyway, why there is so much infighting about this is beyond me. Musicians need money to live, people need music to live - the two are not mutually exclusive. This is, again, where I think the internet has misinformed and under-informed most people about the way things really work to bring them all the content they lust after, in the interest of the corporations willing to sell them the "keys to the kingdom" and take all the money for themselves.

[Lane Visitor]

Yeah, exactly what I was going to say there too. There's a big difference between "making music for money" and "trying to make money with your music". I.e. the point of conception for the music is much, much different in the two cases.

 

And anyway, why there is so much infighting about this is beyond me. Musicians need money to live, people need music to live - the two are not mutually exclusive. This is, again, where I think the internet has misinformed and under-informed most people about the way things really work to bring them all the content they lust after, in the interest of the corporations willing to sell them the "keys to the kingdom" and take all the money for themselves.

 

agreed.

 

what i love is how:

 

"ipods, ipads, surround sound stereo systems, dre beats headphones = yes, i'll spend my hard earned dollar on these fine products. brand x makes a stellar product! im a brand y fanboy. brand z > brand x. look, im an individual with a new i__. i only paid $1500 for it, and i love the innovations that next level corporation is devising so much that i'll continue to subscribe to every newsletter, and read every blog, and buy every single new product, new app and new accessory, while slapping their bumper sticker on my car. im effing hipsterlicious yo."

 

and at the same time:

 

"the new arcade fire/yeaysayer/st. vincent/band x album is doooope. they literally changed my life. theyre so inspiring every time i hear them at Chipotle or at work via Pandora radio. not gunna buy their cd tho cuz like no one buys cds anymore. buuuut... Sometimes i stream it on my Google Android from Spotify while i work out. thinking of maybe checking them out if they come in to town, but im saving up for the new Airbook, which i really need for moving in to my dorm after the summer, so im not sure if i can go. i should really like them on facebook to show support. maybe ill do that, they deserve it. yup. im a fan."

Edited March 29, 2014 by Lane Visitor

[Lane Visitor]

... and then...

 

"music is just not a profitable industry anymore, so get used to it, silly "arteeest" uh yer not gonna make money with yer little band, selling cds or even through itunes bro. do you know how many bands there are? every song is free on youtube. plus bands just straight up give away their tracks now n e way. just accept that making records is only about exposure now. it's PR. live shows and festivals are where artists are making income. so you better think of a gimmick to get yourself out there. stand out. do something craaaazy or shocking yo, maybe you'll go viral."

 

while

 

"bro, the digital revolution is where it's at. these devices and their technologies allow us to connect and gain cultural and artistic exchanges in ways that were never before possible. i believe in the free sharing of information and culture... music, art, film, content. after all, i spent a fortune on these gadgets in order to experience these things. yes, im a tech junkie. yes, my headphones are jacked in and im on tumblr/instagram/etc all day doing meaningful shit. creating, being a part of the exchange that exists on a massive scale. and it wouldnt be possible without the investment i made into my glorious tech gadgets."

Edited March 29, 2014 by Lane Visitor

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

Who needs who more? Do music/art/film etc need to be associated with money to maintain relevance or does money need to be associated music/art/film?

 

Ultimately I think it is money that will lose out if separated from music. If money is mostly just for necessities like bills, then it won't be cool and aspirational.

[Mellow U]

Who needs who more? Do music/art/film etc need to be associated with money to maintain relevance or does money need to be associated music/art/film?

 

Ultimately I think it is money that will lose out if separated from music. If money is mostly just for necessities like bills, then it won't be cool and aspirational.

 

Relevance isn't really the point - what I often tell people when the discussion of the art/money relationship comes up, is to imagine the creators of something like Spotify going back in time to ask Brunelleschi to build the Florence Cathedral Dome out of the goodness of his heart, without any money being involved, because we're living in a modern age where things are changing and artists just can't expect to see a return, at all.

 

The obvious answer is that Brunelleschi would have laughed his ass off, because back then, if art didn't get paid for, it simply didn't get made. Money has always been and will always be a necessary evil (if you even want to call it that) that plays a vital part in media-based art forms being conceived, created, captured, distributed and disseminated. Today is no different. Now, I'm not trying to imply that every asshole making anything is on the same level as Brunelleschi, but rather that money being a very big part of anything artistic is an absolute, unless you just want to be artistic by howling at the moon while you beat rocks together in the woods. It's a tool though, like many others, and in the cases where it counts the most, it matters the least. I.e. Jonny Greenwood did not need to buy an Ondes Martenot to be an amazing instrumentalist. The money helped though! And his work became all the more interesting for it.

[Mellow U]

live shows and festivals are where artists are making income. so you better think of a gimmick to get yourself out there. stand out. do something craaaazy or shocking yo, maybe you'll go viral."

 

 

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

 

Who needs who more? Do music/art/film etc need to be associated with money to maintain relevance or does money need to be associated music/art/film?

 

Ultimately I think it is money that will lose out if separated from music. If money is mostly just for necessities like bills, then it won't be cool and aspirational.

 

Relevance isn't really the point - what I often tell people when the discussion of the art/money relationship comes up, is to imagine the creators of something like Spotify going back in time to ask Brunelleschi to build the Florence Cathedral Dome out of the goodness of his heart, without any money being involved, because we're living in a modern age where things are changing and artists just can't expect to see a return, at all.

 

The obvious answer is that Brunelleschi would have laughed his ass off, because back then, if art didn't get paid for, it simply didn't get made. Money has always been and will always be a necessary evil (if you even want to call it that) that plays a vital part in media-based art forms being conceived, created, captured, distributed and disseminated. Today is no different. Now, I'm not trying to imply that every asshole making anything is on the same level as Brunelleschi, but rather that money being a very big part of anything artistic is an absolute, unless you just want to be artistic by howling at the moon while you beat rocks together in the woods. It's a tool though, like many others, and in the cases where it counts the most, it matters the least. I.e. Jonny Greenwood did not need to buy an Ondes Martenot to be an amazing instrumentalist. The money helped though! And his work became all the more interesting for it.

 

Saying those things happened the way they did because they happened the way they did, doesn't mean good stuff wouldn't happen if things were different. We don't know what would motivate a Brunelleschi or Greenwood in different circumstances. You were motivated to write that without any financial incentive (but probably with other incentives, rather than the goodness of your heart).

 

We invented money but not the value it represents. We didn't so much invent geometric construction or the phenomena of sound and it's arrangement as discover them.

Edited March 29, 2014 by webby

[Mellow U]

 

 

Who needs who more? Do music/art/film etc need to be associated with money to maintain relevance or does money need to be associated music/art/film?

 

Ultimately I think it is money that will lose out if separated from music. If money is mostly just for necessities like bills, then it won't be cool and aspirational.

 

Relevance isn't really the point - what I often tell people when the discussion of the art/money relationship comes up, is to imagine the creators of something like Spotify going back in time to ask Brunelleschi to build the Florence Cathedral Dome out of the goodness of his heart, without any money being involved, because we're living in a modern age where things are changing and artists just can't expect to see a return, at all.

 

The obvious answer is that Brunelleschi would have laughed his ass off, because back then, if art didn't get paid for, it simply didn't get made. Money has always been and will always be a necessary evil (if you even want to call it that) that plays a vital part in media-based art forms being conceived, created, captured, distributed and disseminated. Today is no different. Now, I'm not trying to imply that every asshole making anything is on the same level as Brunelleschi, but rather that money being a very big part of anything artistic is an absolute, unless you just want to be artistic by howling at the moon while you beat rocks together in the woods. It's a tool though, like many others, and in the cases where it counts the most, it matters the least. I.e. Jonny Greenwood did not need to buy an Ondes Martenot to be an amazing instrumentalist. The money helped though! And his work became all the more interesting for it.

 

Saying those things happened the way they did because they happened the way they did, doesn't mean good stuff wouldn't happen if things were different. We don't know what would motivate a Brunelleschi or Greenwood in different circumstances. You were motivated to write that without any financial incentive (but probably with other incentives, rather than the goodness of your heart).

 

We invented money but not the value it represents. We didn't so much invent geometric construction or the phenomena of sound and it's arrangement as discover them.

 

 

Which is fair enough, but again - I struggle to understand the reasoning and logic behind the "great disconnect" of today? I.e. why so many people who profess to love and support music turn around and fight with the creators themselves over how even the most basic works could not happen without financial intervention. Intervention that is indeed the thing being so viciously pulled from the hands and mouths of hard working people, while they're looked at sideways when they question the act.

 

Anyway, I get your point about "we invented money but not sound", but what exactly do you hope to achieve there? That all art should be free of a monetary system entirely? If all sound is merely a discovery or an arrangement of a discovery, then we should just put our machines down right now and start listening to the rain falling instead.

 

No, I think, while money is indeed a great motivator, and I am not financially motivated to write this, I can still sit here as a self-employed artist and say "If you do something well, never do it for free"

 

And THAT is where the problem is, really.

[beerwolf]

Call me old fashioned but I still buy originals of all the music I love, but its fucking awesome that I can listen as many times for free before decided whether its worthy of buying it. That is perfect in my eyes (and ears).

Edited March 29, 2014 by beerwolf

[Plarkreluke Banloboh]

Which is fair enough, but again - I struggle to understand the reasoning and logic behind the "great disconnect" of today? I.e. why so many people who profess to love and support music turn around and fight with the creators themselves over how even the most basic works could not happen without financial intervention. Intervention that is indeed the thing being so viciously pulled from the hands and mouths of hard working people, while they're looked at sideways when they question the act.

 

Anyway, I get your point about "we invented money but not sound", but what exactly do you hope to achieve there? That all art should be free of a monetary system entirely? If all sound is merely a discovery or an arrangement of a discovery, then we should just put our machines down right now and start listening to the rain falling instead.

 

No, I think, while money is indeed a great motivator, and I am not financially motivated to write this, I can still sit here as a self-employed artist and say "If you do something well, never do it for free"

 

And THAT is where the problem is, really.

I agree that money for art can be a great motivator, and services like Spotify are making it harder for people we like to support. But I guess I'm a bit of an Accelerationist. I'm keen to see more of these changes brought on even more quickly. While in the short term the creators of services like Spotify win out, getting rich quick at the expense of artists, it's only because they are speeding up (and lubricating?) a musical-informational process. A process by which aesthetic memes are spread through 1's and 0's and their influence fed back to their creators. I think it's futile to resist, because there are far greater forces at work here than royalties. We are used to the idea of 'the social internet' regarding communication, but we have been slower in thinking of art and entertainment itself being an integrated part of digital communication. I'd be apprehensive of an argument that went: if you have something important to say, never say it for free.

 

We are straying from the topic of "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin" here.