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.