Musicians algorithmically generate "every possible melody" and release them to the public domain

[erok123]

I'll just keep my four chords.

[Phil O'Keefe]

1 hour ago, erok123 said:

I'll just keep my four chords.

You’re welcome to them... but of course you know, you can’t copyright a chord progression. Think of how many songs you know that use a I  IV  V progression...

 

[ohmygod]

Billy Preston's song "Will it go round in circles" may have been about all the copyright issues back in the day

I got a song that ain't no melody, I'm gonna sing it to my friends 
I got a song that ain't no melody, I'm gonna sing it to my friends 
Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky 
Will it go round in circles, will it

[arcadesonfire]

3 hours ago, Phil O'Keefe said:

You’re welcome to them... but of course you know, you can’t copyright a chord progression. Think of how many songs you know that use a I  IV  V progression...

 

Didn’t Radiohead split the copyright of “Creep” because it had the same I III IV iv progression as a Hollies tune? Radiohead arpeggiated and sang a different melody and did a ton of other novel stuff, but they still split the copyright.... and then recently sued Lana Del Rey for using the same progression with a very similar vocal melody. 

Anywho, the matter of borrowing/sharing chord progressions across the centuries is a big reason why I get frustrated with lawsuits about particular rhythms. Music works largely by inspiring and sharing. 

[Phil O'Keefe]

2 hours ago, arcadesonfire said:

Didn’t Radiohead split the copyright of “Creep” because it had the same I III IV iv progression as a Hollies tune?

I'm pretty certain it wasn't over the chord progression, it was the melody. Take a listen to both one after another, and I'm sure you'll hear the similarities.

And as the guy noted in his TEDx talk, if it's similar enough that you very well may lose the case, even if it was unintentional or subconscious, you're often better off settling than trying to fight it in court. If you fight it, you'll rack up a bunch of legal bills, and you still have no guarantee you'll win - and if you lose, you not only have the legal bills, but also have to pay the settlement and give them part of the royalties going forward too. Giving in and agreeing to a settlement when challenged on a copyright infringement case is often less painful and less risky in the long run. 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

2 hours ago, ohmygod said:

Billy Preston's song "Will it go round in circles" may have been about all the copyright issues back in the day

I got a song that ain't no melody, I'm gonna sing it to my friends 
I got a song that ain't no melody, I'm gonna sing it to my friends 
Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky 
Will it go round in circles, will it

 

I never thought about it that way... It's possible, I suppose.  

 

 

 

Hooky song - I always liked that tune.  

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

6 hours ago, Phil O'Keefe said:

You’re welcome to them... but of course you know, you can’t copyright a chord progression. Think of how many songs you know that use a I  IV  V progression...

 

Yeah, but a "groove" can apparently now be copyrighted, all bets are off it seems. 

As far as "Creep"/"Air That I Breathe" goes,  I think that goes into a bit of a grey area since once you start playing that rather-unique chord progression, the melody almost writes itself.   Especially at that slow tempo.

[Phil O'Keefe]

47 minutes ago, Vito Corleone said:

Yeah, but a "groove" can apparently now be copyrighted, all bets are off it seems. 

 

Which is just absurd IMHO.  

I should file a copyright claim for a basic four on the floor backbeat, then hire a lawyer and clean up!   

[ohmygod]

1 hour ago, Phil O'Keefe said:

 

I never thought about it that way... It's possible, I suppose.  

 

 

 

Hooky song - I always liked that tune.  

 

 

I didn't either but your thread sparked the idea. Our bass played used to sing this song and I always wondered what the heck does he mean,"Will it go round in circles will it fly high"? Hmm,  a record goes round in circles and will it fly high to the top of the charts without being sued.  

Preston worked with Harrison on My Sweet Lord and released his own version in '69? Harrison was sued for My Sweet Lord in '71. Will to go round in circles was a hit single in "73
 

[arcadesonfire]

2 hours ago, Phil O'Keefe said:

I'm pretty certain it wasn't over the chord progression, it was the melody. Take a listen to both one after another, and I'm sure you'll hear the similarities.

And as the guy noted in his TEDx talk, if it's similar enough that you very well may lose the case, even if it was unintentional or subconscious, you're often better off settling than trying to fight it in court. If you fight it, you'll rack up a bunch of legal bills, and you still have no guarantee you'll win - and if you lose, you not only have the legal bills, but also have to pay the settlement and give them part of the royalties going forward too. Giving in and agreeing to a settlement when challenged on a copyright infringement case is often less painful and less risky in the long run. 

 

Maybe instead of medical law, I should be looking into musical intellectual property. Hmmmmm

[erok123]

You could always use apple loops, they are royalty free.

Let them sue apple.

[Phil O'Keefe]

29 minutes ago, arcadesonfire said:

Maybe instead of medical law, I should be looking into musical intellectual property. Hmmmmm

 

I am not sure if I'd do that in your shoes - there's bound to be more money in medicine than in music. Then again, you should do whatever it is that you're most passionate about... there's a lot to be said for that - money is important, but it isn't everything in life. Unless of course money is your passion...   

[Phil O'Keefe]

2 minutes ago, erok123 said:

You could always use apple loops, they are royalty free.

Let them sue apple.

Great point!  

If it's true that s/he with the biggest pockets tends to win these things, Apple's probably in pretty good shape and has little to worry about. They have the money to litigate just about anyone into an out of court settlement. 

 

[Zooey]

13 hours ago, arcadesonfire said:

Maybe instead of medical law, I should be looking into musical intellectual property. Hmmmmm

That was an early interest of mine since I was so into sampling. There's an art house documentary called "Sonic Outlaws" that covers the basics in an interesting way. They interview an attorney named Alan Korn who has also written some legal articles for Tape Op. I went into technology law instead, but I did give a lecture on the Blurred Lines case to a music business class at Stanford last year. 

[The original]

On 2/25/2020 at 4:39 PM, Phil O'Keefe said:

My daughter just texted me the link to this article and asked me what I thought. Unfortunately, I can not repeat what I said in reply without breaking the site rules... while their intent (attempting to prevent musicians from getting sued) may be admirable, it also could possibly stop songwriters from exercising their own creativity and writing their own new songs, and remove another one of the major income streams that many musicians rely upon to make a living.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain

What's next? Algorithmically writing every possible book and magazine article, artificially creating every possible movie and TV script, algorithmically creating every painting and photo and releasing all of those things to the public domain? Sorry.... I do not like this one bit because I think it could have considerable unexpected negative consequences for the arts. 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject - pro or con.  

 

 

I would have been against this 50 to 100 years ago. But we've entered a new world. I would rather air in the direction of protecting artists to write whatever they want without having to worry about stepping on someone else's toes, rather than protecting, to an absurd degree, The nuances of the works of someone else.

The wright brothers tried to patent flying. In today's legal environment they would have won, IMO.

This is a hard one for me because I believe that the reason Western Civilization has been so successful in exploding technology is that we protect those that invent to receive benefits financially from their inventions. But art is a wholly different thing and highly subjective, has recent lawsuit results have demonstrated.