8Sided Blog

a zine about sound, culture, and the punk rock dream

Foretelling a Future of Artist Autonomy

· 1 Comment

In a guest column for Billboard, VC friend and SXSW 2019 roomie Brian Penick has some illuminating thoughts about the future of music tech. He’s bullish on the growth of the music industry and points out several ‘key indicators’ that have him excited.

His first indicator is how artificial intelligence will redefine how we approach the creative process:

Imagine, without any prior training, creating a song via AI software with a single click. Now imagine leveraging that song to create a worldwide audience or, even better, a YouTube star pushing that song out to their already-established following.

I’ve spoken to Brian about this, and I believe we agree that, rather than threatening musicians’ livelihoods, AI music — as described in the above quote — creates promotion paths for a personality-driven celebrity outside of the traditional music economy. Your feelings on this probably are in line with your general outlook on celebrity culture, but the activity is nothing new. ‘Stars’ and brands (California Raisins, anyone?) have been promoting themselves with manufactured music projects for ages. And yet culturally meaningful bands and musicians continue to make an impact.

What’s even more impressive is AI as a tool for emerging musicians to exploit. Consider the technology’s application as a fan-interactive tool (different versions for different sets of fans), a creative assistant pushing the artist out of her comfort zone, or a tool that is itself manipulated and pushed to its limits. The ‘recording studio as instrument’ innovation revealed new subsets and styles of genre. In the hands of skilled producers and artists, AI will do the same. Musicians — or those purporting to be — who use AI merely as a crutch will be identified and called out, much like DJs who use ghostwriting teams today.

Crystal Ball Into The Future by Garidy Sanders on Unsplash

Brian’s next indicator is blockchain as a tool to tighten and standardize metadata, and delves into how this affects the tricky calculation of venue royalty:

A 2016 study conducted by my former music recognition company, Soundstr, surveyed almost 3,000 songs in 12 businesses over 2 weeks and found that more than 80% of the music played in public establishments such as bars, night clubs and coffee shops was not properly accounted for. On a national scale, this leaves hundreds of millions of dollars or more on the table for songwriters and publishers, all because of a lack of metadata and tracking methods.

The tracking methods are more important here as metadata can sit within an audio recognition platform like Soundstr or Shazam. PRS and GEMA are currently experimenting with song tracking in venues (something I’ll write more about in the next couple of days). But PRS and GEMA are the only interested parties in their respective territories, those being the United Kingdom and Germany. In the US we’ve got ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR — four performance collection societies that don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye.

Proper venue tracking requires the installation of a passive microphone to do audio recognition. Will US venues have four separate receivers installed, one for each PRO? Will the four agree on one company to handle this and trust that the company won’t reveal tracking info to competitors? Will blockchain somehow make that last question moot?

As I wrote about previously, accurate tracking of song performance in public establishments is new and essential. This type of monitoring hasn’t been a possibility until recent technological developments. I agree it’s a significant growth area in music publishing. But the fractured nature of the US PRO system will require a complementary solution based on appliance and accord, not technology.

The last three indicators that Brian lists go hand-in-hand: innovations in direct-to-consumer delivery, artist brand empowerment, and on-brand investment as part of artist identity. These factors create a more independent artist as income reliance shifts away from third-party platforms. There’s also an increased measure of control. The artist develops and strengthens a brand identity that encourages fans to interact and support via the artist’s hub of engagement. This shift diminishes the necessity of social media platforms for fan outreach.

Utilizing a coherent brand to inspire investment opportunities is also a novel idea:

The real opportunity comes when celebrities realize that, while single or minimal recurring payouts from sponsorships, endorsements or licensing deals are good in some scenarios, the bigger returns come from investing. What better to invest in than products and services you associate and market with your brand?

Our age is entrepreneurial. Artists not only participate and (hopefully) make wise decisions with their earnings but these investments potentially tighten relationships with fans. Brian’s example of Beyoncé’s investment in the vegan lifestyle is an instructive illustration.

That reminds me of this brilliant New Yorker profile of Iggy Pop. Pop is undeniably an artist who does what he wants, an epitome of ‘independent.’1In attitude, vision, and identity, if not label affiliation. I wondered how he maintained his autonomy, and then I read this part of the article:

“The phone rings; I get offered work. And, you know, there’s always my Apple stock,” [Iggy Pop] said, and laughed. “I have taken pains to diversify outside of the music industry.”

This example has a different angle than Brian’s observation. But Pop would not have mentioned Apple if it didn’t fit his identity. More importantly, it reveals a savvy road to independence. And that’s ultimately what these five key indicators foretell — a future of autonomy for the artists who want it.

🔗→ Five Music Tech Investment Areas You Need to Know
🔗→ The Survival of Iggy Pop

He Provides the Soundtrack, We Make the Movie

· Leave a Comment

Be sure to check out this mini-documentary from Mixmag on the enigmatic Detroit producer Moodymann. I love his vision for his city, his ruminations on record shops, and how the staff at Archer Record Pressing warmly welcomes him. But mostly I love this, said to Gilles Peterson:

We went to the club to get down and dance. Everybody knew the DJ and we didn’t sit there and look at the DJ. He provided the music … we was more into the room. He provides the soundtrack, we make the movie. Well, nowadays everybody just stands there and looks at the DJ. It’s not like that’s Prince up there performing live. That’s the fucking DJ.

I got into DJ’ing via punk rock. That may seem like a non-obvious association, but hear me out. What I liked about underground punk rock was that the band wasn’t the star — the band was merely the facilitator, and everyone in the club was on an equal level. We were all part of the show, and together we made it memorable.

There was a similar feeling in underground dance music when I started DJ’ing. It was fine — even preferable — if the DJ was in the dark or behind a wall looking through a slit.1Many clubs in the early ’90s had ‘the slit.’ I admit that I hated this at first as it seemed like a (literal) wall between the DJ and the audience. But I’ve grown nostalgic for a time when the nature of the booth implied that the music was the true star of the show. We were there to come together, every person as necessary to this party as the next, rejoicing in the feeling of the music. That vibe, combined with the fiercely independent distribution and economy of underground dance music, was, to me, a new kind of punk rock.

I’m not shaking my fist at a cloud or feeling like things are worse or better than ‘back in my day.’ But it’s different. And I feel Moodymann’s frustration here. A couple of decades ago the role of DJs changed, elevated to stars as punk rock bands eventually were. And more and more it’s a DJ’s responsibility to be the movie. When that happens, who’s the soundtrack really for?

Related: On the Music Tectonics podcast The Verge’s Dani Deahl mentions, with trepidation, a new AI engine that selects, programs, and mixes music from a DJ’s predetermined selection. That way the DJ can focus on ‘performance’ rather than pesky details like queuing up and beat-matching songs. Canned performance is nothing new — the draw of many DJs and music artists is a cult-of-personality anyway — but the thought of such an app has me looking testily toward the sky.

Sound-Alikes: Litigating the AI Mimic

· Leave a Comment

Dani Deahl in The Verge:

The word “human” does not appear at all in US copyright law, and there’s not much existing litigation around the word’s absence. This has created a giant gray area and left AI’s place in copyright unclear. It also means the law doesn’t account for AI’s unique abilities, like its potential to work endlessly and mimic the sound of a specific artist. Depending on how legal decisions shake out, AI systems could become a valuable tool to assist creativity, a nuisance ripping off hard-working human musicians, or both. […]

If [an AI] system then makes music that sounds like Beyoncé, is Beyoncé owed anything? Several legal experts believe the answer is “no.” […] “There’s nothing legally requiring you to give her any profits from it unless you’re directly sampling,” [Public Knowledge policy counsel Meredith] Rose says. There’s room for debate, she says, over whether this is good for musicians. “I think courts and our general instinct would say, ‘Well, if an algorithm is only fed Beyoncé songs and the output is a piece of music, it’s a robot. It clearly couldn’t have added anything to this, and there’s nothing original there.’”

I’m not so sure. It could turn out that the controversial “Blurred Lines” ruling laid the groundwork for litigating AI-mimicry.

🔗→ We’ve been warned about AI and music for over 50 years, but no one’s prepared

A.I., Writer’s Block

· Leave a Comment

img-1

A terrific article on Medium by Stuart Dredge occupied my thoughts this morning. The title is provocative, but does accurately convey the piece’s thesis — Music Created by Artificial Intelligence Is Better Than You Think:

Human-created music already spans everything from the sublime to the unlistenable. While an A.I. may not be able to out-Adele Adele (or Aretha Franklin, or Joni Mitchell) with a timeless song and performance, it can compose a compelling melody for a YouTube video, mobile game, or elevator journey faster, cheaper, and almost as well as a human equivalent. In these scenarios, it’s often the “faster” and “cheaper” parts that matter most to whoever’s paying.

These ideas mirror what I was saying the other day. A.I. generated music will create significant problems for the library music circuit. But these ‘fast and cheap’ productions will fuel more soulful, distinctive music from those of us who are up to the challenge. I believe the environment will also create increased demand for highly personal music and songs with relatable stories behind them.

And I admit I’m excited about the idea of generative music in public and private spaces. There are many possibilities for this aspect, and my mind boggles. Yep, it’s Brian Eno’s world, and we’re just living in it.

However, there is one part of the article that I have questions about:

Amadeus Code claims to “enhance your songwriting with artificial intelligence” and is squarely aimed at people who are already writing and recording music. Its pitch: “Get unstuck with your songwriting with the power of artificial intelligence and say goodbye to writer’s block for good.”

I don’t have a problem with A.I. as a collaborator. That’s not far off from other creative games we already use, from Oblique Strategies to sample packs to unauthorized remixing. But I am wary of touting A.I. as a cure for ‘writer’s block’ rather than a tool a creator uses with intention.

I fall into the ‘there’s no such thing as writer’s block’ camp. I see it as a crutch, as the lizard brain screaming, as The Resistance. The cure, if we need one, is showing up and doing creative work with consistency and purpose. Selling A.I. as a remedy to ‘writer’s block’ gives more power to the concept. What are we replacing The Resistance with if we turn to A.I. whenever we’re not ‘feeling creative?’ Will there be a danger of letting A.I. tell us too much — giving us the chords, the melodies, the lyrics — whenever we don’t feel like showing up?

I’ll point to Izotope’s Ozone as an example. This software is a mastering suite that analyzes audio and, using an A.I. engine, creates settings for a mastered output. Ozone is an incredible tool. I bought it. I use it. And the company repeatedly emphasizes that what Ozone comes up with is meant to only be a suggestion, a starting place for your tailored tweaks. But I fear the majority of the software’s users probably default to the suggested settings. For some it provides a tempting fallback, an excuse to take it easy and not push oneself.

And that’s my issue. That feeling of ‘writer’s block’ is there for us to push through — to provide a challenge — and many times the result is our best work. I don’t doubt that collaborating with A.I. tools can result in great work. But, if we turn to the technology every time we feel blocked or in a creative rut, then I think we deny a very human aspect of the process. C’mon — we don’t need an easy cure for writer’s block.

🔗→ Music Created by Artificial Intelligence Is Better Than You Think

Don’t Fear the Music Robots

· 1 Comment

img-2

Advances in artificial intelligence, and its applications in our working worlds, understandably create tension and fear. There is the feeling that no job is safe and, for songwriters and musicians, the development of A.I. composed songs is a substantial threat. Though these concerns aren’t entirely unfounded, I think we can find a way to evade the robots.

Scott Belsky, Adobe’s chief product officer and co-creator of Behance, writes in Fast Company:

Creativity is antithetical to the way artificial intelligence works. We develop machine learning by feeding in data about the way people react in certain situations. The point of algorithms is to predict what most people will do and execute that expected action. But what makes something creative is the unexpected. […]

For workers who are threatened by displacement, developing the ability to express ideas in a creative way can help them evolve from a threatened job title to one with more security.

All of my artist clients are eager to break into film and television music. Their first impulse is to create music according to spec — that is, determine a set of rules for music that fits a particular context and write to that. For example, music for a happy product advertisement should contain ukulele and glockenspiel, have a bouncy beat, feature lyrics with phrases like “let’s get together and smile.”

If your goal is fulfilling a spec requirement — whether it’s your own imagined rules or someone else’s — then you’ll be outdone. You’ll have to be faster and cheaper than the others who are also delivering to spec. And, in the future, this includes A.I. The answer is to go beyond spec, to provide something more than the rules require. Something personal and unexpected.

“Then how do I create music for movies and TV shows?” It’s as simple as making the best music you’re capable of and creating it in a way that represents you. This music needs to be distinctive to stand out. It should be from the heart. And it could only have been made by you.

Yes, many projects demand specifications. Ukuleles and glockenspiels are all over online product ads. But soon low-priced music libraries will be filled with A.I. created versions of these songs. No one does spec better than a computer, and that signals a race to the bottom. You don’t want to be a part of that race.

Project managers looking for generic music at the lowest price-point are familiar in our industry. But there are also music supervisors looking for music that’s cool and distinctive, as that will make their projects cool and distinctive. They pay handsomely for that piece of ‘cool.’

The dominance of A.I. in the traditional ‘library music’ field will make the difference starker. The rewards will come to those with a story to tell, with music that’s identifiable and capable of connection. Don’t overthink it. Focus your craft on finding a unique voice and a sound that will continue to inspire you. That will lead to your best work — work that others will seek and appreciate. But following the market’s presumed expectations pits you against the robots. I’ve seen that movie — it’s a futile battle.

Nick Cave may have put it best on The Red Hand Files, his brilliant new Q&A blog:

What we are actually listening to is human limitation and the audacity to transcend it. Artificial Intelligence, for all its unlimited potential, simply doesn’t have this capacity. How could it? And this is the essence of transcendence. If we have limitless potential then what is there to transcend? And therefore what is the purpose of the imagination at all. Music has the ability to touch the celestial sphere with the tips of its fingers and the awe and wonder we feel is in the desperate temerity of the reach, not just the outcome. Where is the transcendent splendour in unlimited potential? So to answer your question, Peter, AI would have the capacity to write a good song, but not a great one. It lacks the nerve.

🔗 → How To Thwart the Robots: Unabashed Creativity
🔗 → Considering human imagination the last piece of wilderness, do you think AI will ever be able to write a good song?