Each week, I first summarize my adventures in making music. Lately, I have been composing tracks for the Disquiet Junto, the Naviar Records Haiku Music Challenge and, this year for the first time, Weekly Beats. I also have other projects and collaborations I will share occasionally.
I also bring together the perspective I shared in posts on social media (currently Mastodon) about the music industry in the section: Music + Tech + Law. These thoughts are intended to come from me as a consumer of, and participant in, the entertainment business. However, I cannot completely separate the thoughts I generate from the part of my brain I use for my day job as a lawyer experienced in technology contracts and intellectual property.
My Music
It’s only Week 3 of Weekly Beats 2024 and I started to feel the pressure of getting a track uploaded by Sunday evening. Admittedly, I put off starting my track until later in the week, then I had an unexpected overnight trip on Saturday night. Still, I was able to come up with something that sounds finished.
My first two tracks have been described as chill and relaxed, so I intentionally tried to pick up the energy this week. I was inspired by a Bonobo track where he alternated between these two different types of beats, so this song came out with two distinct parts. I was having some ideas about where else I could take those parts, but decided to wrap it up on Sunday afternoon. The final touches were mostly taking elements out rather than adding things in.
Music + Tech + Law
The successful pitch for the planned documentary about Brian Eno was to use generative AI technology to essentially create a new film each time it is played. I find this very intriguing. The film will complement Eno’s other generative music projects, and I agree with him that music documentaries tend to be too flattering of their subjects. Another point I would make is I almost never watch a documentary twice. If each viewing experience is unique, I could see myself watching it multiple times.
I agree with the quote in this headline, that current copyright laws were not written with AI in mind, but the same could have been said during past technological advancements. In the end, the law adapts. It’s just that some of those adaptations favor artists and some have been to their detriment. That is why it is so important to advocate for a legal framework that favors human creativity.
I must have missed the news about the generative single from Disclosure and only heard about it when reading this article about the company behind the AI technology for generative releases. When I find a song I really, really like, I often listen to it on repeat, but I don’t do the same with films. I can imagine wanting to explore alternate versions of songs I like, but eventually I think I would always to come back to that one version that caught my attention in the first place.
In reading this announcement about Fairly Trained, I find the entity’s name itself to be a brilliant use of language. Leading AI companies co-opted the word “open” even though they don’t meet the widely-accepted definition of “open source.” Fairly Trained is preemptively reclaiming the word “fair.” As big technology companies argue that using material protected by copyright is technically “fair use,” Fairly Trained is saying that is still not “fair.” I also like how Newton-Rex pushes back on use of the word “training,” replacing it with “building.”
It is amazing to me that “breakthrough” #AI technology designed to accomplish the single task of generating a song like this one from TikTok skips a crucial step that uses ubiquitous technology, like auto-tune. To me, this is something that would happen when there are no musicians in the product development lifecycle.
My opinions are not my employer’s and this material does not create an attorney-client relationship, is not intended to convey legal or ethics advice, and does not guarantee the same or similar results in all cases.