[eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)

[Paul Brown]

Hi Antoine,

I take your point and apologise if you found it offensive or bullish. I
was simply and, in hindsight, clumsily trying to end the debate about
the copyright issue. Old habits it would appear die hard. My music
industry background has taught me to seek the advice that best fits the
problem or issue that you are trying to resolve, stick to it hammer and
tooth and if challenged suggest that the challengers seek legal advice
themselves. In many cases they would come back with advice that
contradicted the advice that you had sought (lawyers for you!) but I can
assure you that the responses to the same question concurred! 

It has a faint smell of arrogance, I know, and you may well say that I
received positive responses from them because they were interested in
profiting from future potential business but the issue of copyright or
the non-existence of copyright in what I term "pure" generative works is
an important commercial factor in driving forward the scenarios I am
suggesting where "pure" generative music systems might be better placed
to substitute what I term linear music systems in everyday situations. 

Basically, if no copyright subsists in the music generated by the
generative music system the end user, the bar, restaurant, gym owner etc
etc would not need to have to have a licence from either the PRS or PPL
for his or her premises. Further benefits, that may offset the cost of
installing a generative music system and its array of associated sensors
in the premises, could be that you could theoretically create
"tailor-made" music that was more appropriate for and more adaptable to
the situation or environment for which it was intended therefore
enhancing the clienteles' experience of the music and in turn also
benefiting the owner financially by having more clientele through the
door etc.

Yes, it is a little bit out there and maybe I have put two and two
together to make five and have too much confidence in the potential for
generative music. If you do think so I would gladly like to hear from
you and for you to tell me why. If the whole idea completely revolts you
and you think that the ideas are yet another nail in the coffin for
artists please let me know and let me know why. You may consider that
thinking in such commercial or business terms is completely repugnant
and goes against the grain of what you believe generative music, or
generative art in general, is or is intended for. If so please tell me.
You might think that it is completely immoral, unethical and yet another
step towards a bland, sterile and homogeneous world and simply
Macdonaldagapastarbucksakfcadisation in sheep's clothing. Again, please
tell me.

I, on the other hand, would like to think that (until you convince me
otherwise!), in time, the scenarios that I am suggesting could happen
and if so I would like to be prepared and start to build a structure in
advance to support it so that any income generated goes in the right
rather than the wrong direction. Technological advances after all move
much faster than the business models created to support them and as a
consequence businesses are always playing catch up and loosing money as
a consequence. It would be nice to reverse, if only temporarily, this
trend. Hence the question about the algorithms, their nature and their
importance in generative music systems. What is your definition of an
algorithm in the context of generative music systems?

Thanks again,
Regards,
Paul


p.s. and if still relevant within the thread the definition I like to
use for generative music, in any case, is:

"Generative music is commonly agreed to describe music in which a system
or process is composed to generate music rather than the composition of
the direct musical event which will result from that system.  The
generative composer has only indirect control the final musical result,
and the creativity of the compositional process is found in the
decisions about how the system will operate and the rules inside the
system"(Rich 2003)

I would go further and say that the music created, the "pure" generative
music, is not fixed in anyway i.e. the final output it is not recorded.
"Pure" generative music constantly evolves, adapts and changes in
real-time based on the rules that the composer implements and often by
external data that combined with those rules influences its development
further. By changing the nature of the sounds used, the rhythm, scales
and dynamics the generative music piece could appear to pass through a
number of distinct, separate compositions throughout the course of its
evolution. I believe that a "pure" generative music piece simply ends
when it is no longer relevant for purpose for which it was created, when
it has outlived its usefulness or everybody goes home and the caretaker
switches off the lights, and the duration of the piece is not fixed in
the conventional sense. I believe as a generative music composer you
have to be less precious about the ends and concentrate more on the
means so that future pieces created by the system or new systems that
you go on to create remain fresh, interesting and relevant for the
purpose that it was created. As a generative music composer you also
have to accept that you may never hear again the piece that your system
has just created no matter how wonderful, original and groundbreaking
you thought it was. 

Musicians/composers who use generative music systems as tools in the
recording studio to make linear recordings are doing just that, using
them as tools. As soon as generative music is recorded it becomes a
linear recording, fixed and lifeless.


-----Original Message-----
From: eu-gene-bounces at generative.net
[mailto:eu-gene-bounces at generative.net] On Behalf Of Antoine Schmitt
Sent: 16 October 2005 02:18
To: generative art
Subject: RE: [eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)

:::::::::15/10/05::::14:23 +0100::::Paul Brown:::::::::
>Thanks for your reply. All I can suggest regarding the copyright issue
>is that you take a look at (you are UK based right?) the Copyright
>Designs And Patents Act 1988, Copyright and Related Rights Regulations
>2003 and take further advice from a lawyer if you need further
>clarification. PRS have a legal referral service where various UK
>lawyers have agreed to give advice to PRS members, without charge, for
>up to one hour at the first meeting.
>Hopefully your other questions have been answered either directly or
>indirectly by Nick Collins' response.

Hey Paul,
so you come to a generative art mailing-list that existed long before 
you, and ask about people's ideas about generative music and rights, 
and when they, with their personal experience - and not the least, 
express point of views that don't fit yours, you just refer them to a 
lawyer... That's not a very constructive attitude I think.
I think that your basic error is to think that law is an exact 
science. It is not : laws are always interpreted, and laws change, 
there are grey areas and your are, interestingly, adressing an issue 
right in the middle of one such grey area.
-- 

++ as

-- 
'The world is actually pear shaped'
To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene