-
Disturbing and annoying:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jazz/commen...D9Av1jtCOjAQAA
-
09-03-2025 01:15 AM
-
Two words to sum up our times.
Originally Posted by starjasmine
-
I gave a small, impromptu private "concert" of all-original tunes to a group of maybe 20-30 people a few weeks ago, armed with an old dreadnought and a looper pedal through a micro cube amp. In spite of below-par sound quality, as one could imagine, plus technical issues with me cursing the pedal for not shutting up on cue, the audience apparently thoroughly enjoyed it (as my wife later told me). I got the impression that they were just so grateful to "see" an actual musician playing (and sweating) actual music on an actual instrument.
Humans = analog. Digital is not to be trusted. John sounds great live.
-
Just re-read my post and I suppose I was kind of saying that once they've sampled and digitalized all of your music, it's out of your hands. The one thing they can't do is get out there and play it live.
We live in a fake world. Try to make it more real.
?
-
Live performance has been a unique and powerful aspect of many performing arts, even before AI came into the picture. I'd sit at home with records that caught my ear, trying to learn to play like that, inevitably finding that something that sounded "simple" was much more challenging to pull off than it might appear to be. And the difficult stuff - yeah, I wanted to see my heroes play it live, for lots of reasons. The first being that live performance always has some cachet that the best reproduction can't provide - "being there" when an inspiring performance happens is truly special. And there's something about seeing someone do IRL what sounds so magical on a recording. The difference between the canned performance and the live one is always interesting. Plus, the educational aspect of being able to see how that great player does things, whether it's how he (or she) holds their pick or how they interact with the rest of the band and the audience.
I guess I'm saying that even before AI, there was overdubbing and other studio tricks that could make a mediocre musician sound better than they really were. So those who could pull it off in real time on a real stage in a live performance had more cred.
We now know that those studio wizards like the Wrecking Crew and the Funk Brothers were the real magic. Getting to see footage from those sessions is a treat. IDK whether I'd go so far as to say there's more transparency now... but some long-held secrets are being let out, and seeing what's real in that way is always interesting, too.
-
Think that’s bad? I came across a fake John McLaughlin playing electronic lounge music for semi-comatose individuals.
No it wasn’t his mid-career albums with the guitar synth…
There are advantages to both studio and live work, and I’ve listened to a lot of both lately. NOTHING can replace the enjoyment of seeing a great artist or band play live when they’re in their prime, but…the experience of a great studio album is phenomenal, as well.
If the Beatles played the White Album live, or if Pink Floyd played Dark Side of the Moon live, it couldn’t possibly match up to the original.
Though interestingly Govt Mule’s version of Pink Floyd is very rewarding in its own light.
I keep seeing live music, and hopefully will till I die. The last GREAT show I saw was probably Tedeschi Trucks last year, though I did see Ringo Starr and his Allstars this summer for the 4th of July, and it was a lot of fun.
We have close-up seats for Bonnie Raitt in 3 weeks, and she always puts on a good show. This will be the 4th time I’ve seen her. Looking forward to it.
-
Why patronize and even link it then? TBH I don't understand this. Fewer clicks=less relevance. Originally Posted by starjasmine
-
Why comment on something that you clearly haven't read? Originally Posted by DawgBone
The link is to a Reddit discussion about Spotify promoting its own AI-generated ripoffs of known artists. It's not a link to the fake music.
-
I'm amazed they're legally allowed to use his name. Seriously.
-
Maybe not legally. As I understand it, copyright infringement can be the Wild West. Only those artists/labels with deep enough pockets to sue can protect their IP. And there has to be cooperation between countries to enforce copyright protections. I heard a rumor that bootleg DVDs of major motion pictures are generally available for sale out of the trunks of cars in China within 48 hours of their release in the US... and there's no repercussion, bc China does enforce US copyright law. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Well... Originally Posted by ragman1
Promoters sent out fake Fleetwood Mac and Zombies bands that had nothing to do with the originals. (One of the fake Zombies bands featured future members of ZZ Top.)
As an artist you may or may not own your name. Weird.
-
If the Beatles had practiced as a group in order to play many of the songs on the White Album, live, my assumptions is the end result would have been fantastic, and possibly better in many ways than the studio recordings, where John and Paul were rarely in the studio together and\or contributed to each other songs (assuming the addition of and a high quality musician like Billy Preston on keyboards). Of course, songs with horns and\or strings wouldn't be performed. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
What made me think of that was the rooftop performance of Get Back; John's guitar playing really shines. OK, George was bored as hell, but if George was energized for such a live performance, it might have been like the initial years where the band was a very tight and solid live performing group.
-
Scofield can do it. It might only require a solicitors' cease and desist letter. In any case, Spotify shouldn't support this sort of thing, if only for their own good. Originally Posted by starjasmine
-
In that case it would have to be enshrined in the contract that their name could be used by anybody for any old thing. Which is highly doubtful. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
I don't think that's quite what Jeff is saying. It used to be common for record companies to own naming rights and recording masters for their acts, rather than the artists themselves owning those rights. IDK how much that still happens today, but it's not unheard of. Donald Fagen was embroiled for years in a lawsuit with Walter Becker's estate over whether Fagen could tour under the name Steely Dan after Becker passed away. And Dennis DeYoung is not allowed to tour as Styx, despite having founded the band and written many of their biggest hits. Originally Posted by ragman1
Clearly, Spotify is engaging in some questionable practices here. It will be interesting to see what shakes out.
-
That's all I'm saying. I'm no expert but I doubt it has much to do with the contractual complexities you mentioned. As you say, record companies own the masters, hence independent labels, but the composition of tunes is owned by the writers and publishers.Spotify is engaging in some questionable practices here.
Spotify can claim some immunity because they merely upload the AI creations of other companies/individuals. But if those uploads are not clearly labelled as AI it amounts to fraud, especially if they are earning money from it.
Bottom line, the problem is the law. It needs tightening up. Stupid to introduce AI without very clear boundaries on its use.
-
I doubt Spotify is involved. Somebody created an account and uploaded the files. Someone uploaded the same files on Qobuz, a French streaming service.
The John Schofield Band might be a legitimate act, led by another John Schofield; perhaps it is his uncle John's band.
In other news, John Mayer (16 October 1977) is an American singer, songwriter, and guitarist; John Mayer (28 October 1930 – 9 March 2004) was an Anglo-Indian fusion composer.
-
Spotify platform rules:
Illegal content:
The law is the law. No matter who you are, it is your responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
What to avoid:
Content that violates applicable laws and regulations includes, but may not be limited to:
Content that does not comply with applicable sanctions and export regulations
Content that is intended to promote or commit an illegal act of any kind
Content that infringes the intellectual property rights of others includes, but may not be limited to:
Content provided to Spotify without obtaining necessary permissions
Content that infringes third-party copyrights or trademarks
Safety and Privacy Centre
-
So the question is whether the use of AI we're discussing is covered by this. If it isn't then Spotify has to update its policies. But if the law itself is unclear or just wrong then it needs to get itself sorted out. Rapido.
-
Whole lotta assuming going on in this thread. The John Schofield Band might exist (Schofield is a Yorkshire name, so the band might be found in the Ridings). Using the same name as someone famous is not an offence. Here are some bands that have the same names as famous bands: Nirvana, Death, Genesis, Shining, Ghost, Kaleidoscope, Air, Burial, Virus, Massacre, Placebo, Phoenix, Felt, Orchid, Incubus, Pentagram, Anthrax.
It is a civil matter, if anything. To stop it, Schofield's people might need to prove, in a Swedish court, that an attempt to deceive had been made. That would be an expensive case. Even if they succeeded, the broader ethical issue remains: Spotify creates ghost artists in order to provide content without paying royalties.
-
I wonder whether the pop stars of today will ever be allowed to die, or whether record companies, owning the brand, will continue to release AI generated music in their name.
And will the market care?
-
I think the real question here is how copyright law defines a "derivative work" - and I really don't know much about that. An AI-generated imitation of the style of another artist could legitimately be considered original material, even if it borrows heavily. It'll be interesting - in whatever way you want to interpret that - to see what shakes out.
-
Midi took the wind out of my sails 40 years ago. Now there's GPUs on steroids.
Be ready to adapt.
-
The law, in the form of the United States Copyright Office, defines a derivative work concisely: Originally Posted by starjasmine
A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already existing works. Common derivative works include translations, musical arrangements, motion picture versions of literary material or plays, art reproductions, abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works. Another common type of derivative work is a “new edition” of a preexisting work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work.
The real question is whether the works attributed to the 'John Schofield Band' on Spotify and Qobuz bear any resemblance to the recordings of the guitarist John Schofield. Since none of us have heard them, we must assume they do resemble his songs, for the sake of argument. The AI software used to create these songs is just a tool. The human operators of the tool are responsible for its creations. If the people behind the John Schofield Band derived their songs from the real John Schofield's work, then they would be liable for copyright infringement.
The Record Industry Association of America is suing two AI music generation companies, Suno and Udio, on behalf of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group. As Pillsbury puts it:
The record labels allege that Suno and Udio are circumventing copyright laws by using copyrighted materials without a license to train their AI algorithms, which are then used to create, as alleged, infringing music content on their platforms. The recording companies further allege that the ultimate output creates voices, sounds and songs that are substantially similar to content belonging to well-known recording artists. While AI technology can enhance user experience by offering personalized recommendations and complimenting human creativity, the record labels argue that copyright law requires proper licensing and permissions secured from rights holders before they can be used by AI platforms in their training and automation processes. The record labels further argue that the unauthorized use and distribution of copyrighted music undermines the exclusive rights granted to them and recording artists under U.S. copyright law—including the ability to control how their works are used, distributed and monetized. These cases will be closely watched as they could dictate the interpretation of copyright law and the protection of fair use in the copyright space.Last edited by Litterick; 09-07-2025 at 05:09 AM.
-
My yardstick for this is simple. If it upsets people or makes them angry then it's wrong. That easy.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos