The author builds arguments based on a couple of premises with which I disagree: 1. Live music and recorded music are just two representations of the same unde

The author builds arguments based on a couple of premises with which I disagree: 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-Hilariously-Hijacks-CBC-Anthem-Contest http://www.metafilter.com/73403/Something-Awful-Forum-Hilari... 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZMnF1VNlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZMnF1VNlE