Music Remaker
November 18, 2020 2:33 PM Subscribe
I seem to remember a software program that would take a song (w/o vocals) and keep all of the major elements but rearrange them so that the song was recognizable to the song it originally was but different enough to not be considered plagiarized.
Is that software available either for sale or open source? And if I were engaged in a project where I wanted to use, for example, James Brown's song, "Paid the Cost to be Boss," could I conceivably use this software to give me music anyone might recognize as the Godfather's music but not so much that lawyers would come after me?
Is that software available either for sale or open source? And if I were engaged in a project where I wanted to use, for example, James Brown's song, "Paid the Cost to be Boss," could I conceivably use this software to give me music anyone might recognize as the Godfather's music but not so much that lawyers would come after me?
I seem to remember a software program that would take a song (w/o vocals) and keep all of the major elements but rearrange them so that the song was recognizable to the song it originally was but different enough to not be considered plagiarized.
You mean, like, automatically? Where you just feed it a song and it sort of jumbles it up and rearranges it?
posted by soundguy99 at 3:46 PM on November 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
You mean, like, automatically? Where you just feed it a song and it sort of jumbles it up and rearranges it?
posted by soundguy99 at 3:46 PM on November 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Copywrite infringement cases, particularly involving famous musicians, are much more about who can throw more money at lawyers (and put the case in a jurisdiction so far away from the home turf of the party with less money that mounting a defense is ruinously expensive) than what the actual notes are.
There are cases where pretty clear cut infringement gets away with it and cases where using the same simple chord progression that's been used for centuries is deemed infringing.
That said, I don't think there's every been software that does quite what you want. AI software can write fairly compelling stuff when there's strict rules like counterpoint (e.g. CPU Bach) but when you try writing something complex like James Brown you end up with Songsmith.
posted by Candleman at 3:58 PM on November 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
There are cases where pretty clear cut infringement gets away with it and cases where using the same simple chord progression that's been used for centuries is deemed infringing.
That said, I don't think there's every been software that does quite what you want. AI software can write fairly compelling stuff when there's strict rules like counterpoint (e.g. CPU Bach) but when you try writing something complex like James Brown you end up with Songsmith.
posted by Candleman at 3:58 PM on November 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is a fascinating concept. The two things that it immediately makes me think of are:
1. Microsoft Songsmith, which was billed as a way to add backing tracks to your original vocals, but which people immediately fed existing vocal tracks into to bizarre/amusing results (example). This dates from about ten years ago and isn't really what you're describing, but you may be partially remembering it.
2. OpenAI Jukebox, which generates music in the same style as a small sample (example). This is much more recent technology - it's only been around since this year. This is much more like what you describe, but it's technically distinct - Jukebox doesn't just reshuffle elements, but generates wholly new audio with a neural net.
Neither is exactly what you describe, but OpenAI Jukebox is much closer. I fear that what you're describing would count as sampling, which is at best a grey area in terms of legality and at worst will get you sued by record labels that can afford much more expensive lawyers than you can. Being sued for sampling was highly fashionable in the 90s, but it's still a real and extant issue. There have been some very worrying precedents set recently in American courts - for instance, a song that objectively did not sample or copy another was still ruled as infringing on the latter's copyright in 2015. This ruling was widely denounced by musicians (if I may get on a soapbox for a moment - because it's completely ridiculous), but hasn't been overturned at appeal.
Personally, I wouldn't risk using even something like OpenAI Jukebox in a commercial project: legally, the only way to be certain you won't be sued is to use something you know you have the rights to use. Practically speaking, this means hiring someone to create a soundalike track for you (more expensive but gets better results), or using library music (cheap, easy, guaranteed legal).
posted by spielzebub at 4:03 PM on November 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
1. Microsoft Songsmith, which was billed as a way to add backing tracks to your original vocals, but which people immediately fed existing vocal tracks into to bizarre/amusing results (example). This dates from about ten years ago and isn't really what you're describing, but you may be partially remembering it.
2. OpenAI Jukebox, which generates music in the same style as a small sample (example). This is much more recent technology - it's only been around since this year. This is much more like what you describe, but it's technically distinct - Jukebox doesn't just reshuffle elements, but generates wholly new audio with a neural net.
Neither is exactly what you describe, but OpenAI Jukebox is much closer. I fear that what you're describing would count as sampling, which is at best a grey area in terms of legality and at worst will get you sued by record labels that can afford much more expensive lawyers than you can. Being sued for sampling was highly fashionable in the 90s, but it's still a real and extant issue. There have been some very worrying precedents set recently in American courts - for instance, a song that objectively did not sample or copy another was still ruled as infringing on the latter's copyright in 2015. This ruling was widely denounced by musicians (if I may get on a soapbox for a moment - because it's completely ridiculous), but hasn't been overturned at appeal.
Personally, I wouldn't risk using even something like OpenAI Jukebox in a commercial project: legally, the only way to be certain you won't be sued is to use something you know you have the rights to use. Practically speaking, this means hiring someone to create a soundalike track for you (more expensive but gets better results), or using library music (cheap, easy, guaranteed legal).
posted by spielzebub at 4:03 PM on November 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
Are you thinking of Spleeter (which we had an FPP on), a bit of open-source software that uses some machine learning code to create stem tracks (often used in remixes) from stereo recordings?
posted by soundguy99 at 4:08 PM on November 18, 2020
posted by soundguy99 at 4:08 PM on November 18, 2020
I do not believe the legality of automated song generation or other machine learning content creators has been tried in court anywhere, I've been paying attention and haven't seen any actual decisions. Machine learning algorithms are clearly using some component of the original but it is unclear if that violates copyright.
For vague cases like this with no precedent the practical judgement often comes down to intent. So if the legal question is "Can I use this questionable technology to do something that I know would normally be illegal?" the answer is probably no, because your intent is to do something infringing.
posted by JZig at 4:20 PM on November 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
For vague cases like this with no precedent the practical judgement often comes down to intent. So if the legal question is "Can I use this questionable technology to do something that I know would normally be illegal?" the answer is probably no, because your intent is to do something infringing.
posted by JZig at 4:20 PM on November 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: JZig, I think you make a really good point. The purpose isn't to infringe, as in to take something that belongs to someone else and claim it as mine. But I wonder if its possible that anyone else other than James Brown could've come up with his chord structures and melodies? I mean, I think of Frank Sinatra and Harry Connick Jr., or Harry Connick Jr. and Michael Buble and how different but how similar they are. If I used a machine learning algorithm to create something that sounded like James Brown but wasn't James Brown, is that infringement? If I was trying to create a mood that the Godfather successfully created, am I infringing by trying to create a similar but not identical mood? For the record companies, it might just be a battle of attrition between me and them that they would surely win before the first shot was ever fired. But still, how far away from the hint of JB would I have to get before it was far enough?
posted by CollectiveMind at 8:10 PM on November 18, 2020
posted by CollectiveMind at 8:10 PM on November 18, 2020
I think of Frank Sinatra and Harry Connick Jr., or Harry Connick Jr. and Michael Buble and how different but how similar they are.
Yes, but that's rather a different question. Copyright - which is what you seemed to be initially asking about with regard to chopping up/remixing an already existing song and/or recording of a song - mostly deals with specific elements; chord progressions, melodies, lyrics in the case of a song copyright; pieces of existing recordings used in sampling and remixes is covered under a separate copyright of the initial sound recording. You have to copyright an actual "thing", not an "idea." You can't copyright a musical "style", so Michale Buble sounding similar to Harry Connick Jr. sounding similar to Frank Sinatra is perfectly OK from a copyright standpoint.
how far away from the hint of JB would I have to get before it was far enough?
So, if you or an AI created a wholly original song that sounded exactly like a JB song, my guess would be you're technically fine (as long as you don't try to pass it off as a lost JB song.) It's original material, you own the copyright, IANAL but I would bet that you'd win any copyright suit . . . eventually. But they probably wouldn't even try to sue you over copyright.
Although JZig does have a point - like him, AFAIK it's not yet been determined what the status is if a machine learning algorithm is "seeded" with already created stuff that is then used to create original material. You could be a test case . . . (kidding, I'm sure you don't want that.)
Where you might run into some trouble is over the idea that an artist can have a distinct and unique and well-known voice/personality/style and copying that might fall under the "using their likeness without permission" legal precedents (which, again, is not copyright (or plagiarism.)) There was the case where Tom Waits sued Frito Lay over them using a sound-alike of him for a commercial, and that case was supported by an earlier case where Bette Midler sued Ford over the same thing. Would those precedents apply to your hypothetical situation? I dunno - in both of those one of the main objections was that by using a sound-alike for a commercial it implied that the artist approved of the advertised product or company, which could be damaging to their control over their own reputation. Assuming you're not intending to use this in a advertisement, would your creation of a sound-alike JB song be considered damaging to his (estates'/record labels'/publishers') reputation? Beats the heck out of me. (I mean, I think it would be a given that JB had a distinct and unique and well-known style, so you would definitely be up against it there.)
a software program that would take a song (w/o vocals) and keep all of the major elements but rearrange them
Again, this inital question certainly sounds like you're talking about doing something with an already existing (and therefore copyrighted) song and/or sound recording. And so that's where you would possibly run into trouble.
but not so much that lawyers would come after me?
There's no way to predict this or to give you some kind of formula. Copyright holders actually have a fair amount of leeway over whether they want to bother going after someone or not and how far they want to pursue it - tons of copyright enforcements start and end with Cease and Desist notifications; "quit distributing that thing to the public" rather than "I'm taking you for everything you and your children ever have earned or ever will earn in your lifetimes."
posted by soundguy99 at 9:15 PM on November 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes, but that's rather a different question. Copyright - which is what you seemed to be initially asking about with regard to chopping up/remixing an already existing song and/or recording of a song - mostly deals with specific elements; chord progressions, melodies, lyrics in the case of a song copyright; pieces of existing recordings used in sampling and remixes is covered under a separate copyright of the initial sound recording. You have to copyright an actual "thing", not an "idea." You can't copyright a musical "style", so Michale Buble sounding similar to Harry Connick Jr. sounding similar to Frank Sinatra is perfectly OK from a copyright standpoint.
how far away from the hint of JB would I have to get before it was far enough?
So, if you or an AI created a wholly original song that sounded exactly like a JB song, my guess would be you're technically fine (as long as you don't try to pass it off as a lost JB song.) It's original material, you own the copyright, IANAL but I would bet that you'd win any copyright suit . . . eventually. But they probably wouldn't even try to sue you over copyright.
Although JZig does have a point - like him, AFAIK it's not yet been determined what the status is if a machine learning algorithm is "seeded" with already created stuff that is then used to create original material. You could be a test case . . . (kidding, I'm sure you don't want that.)
Where you might run into some trouble is over the idea that an artist can have a distinct and unique and well-known voice/personality/style and copying that might fall under the "using their likeness without permission" legal precedents (which, again, is not copyright (or plagiarism.)) There was the case where Tom Waits sued Frito Lay over them using a sound-alike of him for a commercial, and that case was supported by an earlier case where Bette Midler sued Ford over the same thing. Would those precedents apply to your hypothetical situation? I dunno - in both of those one of the main objections was that by using a sound-alike for a commercial it implied that the artist approved of the advertised product or company, which could be damaging to their control over their own reputation. Assuming you're not intending to use this in a advertisement, would your creation of a sound-alike JB song be considered damaging to his (estates'/record labels'/publishers') reputation? Beats the heck out of me. (I mean, I think it would be a given that JB had a distinct and unique and well-known style, so you would definitely be up against it there.)
a software program that would take a song (w/o vocals) and keep all of the major elements but rearrange them
Again, this inital question certainly sounds like you're talking about doing something with an already existing (and therefore copyrighted) song and/or sound recording. And so that's where you would possibly run into trouble.
but not so much that lawyers would come after me?
There's no way to predict this or to give you some kind of formula. Copyright holders actually have a fair amount of leeway over whether they want to bother going after someone or not and how far they want to pursue it - tons of copyright enforcements start and end with Cease and Desist notifications; "quit distributing that thing to the public" rather than "I'm taking you for everything you and your children ever have earned or ever will earn in your lifetimes."
posted by soundguy99 at 9:15 PM on November 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
There was a site called the Infinite Jukebox, which would splice together different sections of uploaded music to create a random arrangement of the song. That site seems to have stopped working, but appears to live on at the Eternal Jukebox.
That's what your question made me think of.
posted by emelenjr at 6:38 AM on November 19, 2020
That's what your question made me think of.
posted by emelenjr at 6:38 AM on November 19, 2020
« Older How/Where do I donate an elephant figurine... | How should I empty my cafetière (French press)? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by music for skeletons at 2:42 PM on November 18, 2020