Music, one of the fundamental carrier of culture, transcends words. It speaks the language of emotions, using pitch and rhythm to evoke feelings in a way that spoken language (with its reliance on meaning) does not compare. However, speech too carries emotional weight through its inflections, this goes to show the universality of music's foundation – the expression of feeling. This fluidity allows to expand the definition of music to encompass any sound that carries emotional resonance, blurring the lines between musical speech and artistic expression.
Human beings are wired to imitate. As infants, we learn to speak by mirroring the sounds we hear, progressing from mimicking individual sounds to forming sentences. This process of imitation, integration, and then personal expression underpins all learning. For music follows the same formula. We are drawn to certain sounds and rhythms, we internalize them, and ultimately use them as building blocks for our own musical expression.
The intersection of art and commerce within the music sector often sparks debates surrounding intellectual property (IP) laws and their implications for creators. The advent of the internet has exacerbated this discussion, blurring the lines between legal and ethical considerations regarding copyright infringement and fair use. As a result, artists and content creators grapple with the balance between protecting their intellectual rights and promoting culture and collaboration.
The invention of the printing press arguably laid the groundwork for IP laws. Creators, particularly those of written works, lacked the means to prevent uncontrolled replication and subsequent undercutting of their work. However, in the context of music and other forms of creative expression, the application of IP laws becomes more nuanced due to the intangible nature of digital content. While capitalism incentivizes creators to monetize their intellectual assets, it also creates tensions between commercial interests and artistic freedom. Creativity thrives on the exchange of ideas. We copy, integrate, and reinterpret, building upon existing works to create something new. IP laws, however, aim to protect the very act of copying, hindering the very process that fosters artistic growth.
This essay serves as a springboard for a deeper exploration of music consumption, particularly in the digital age. We must question whether the current IP framework truly benefits the emergence of new creators. Who does it truly protect, and why? Can free access to music, facilitated by alternative platforms, contribute to a more vibrant musical culture? By examining these questions, we can move towards a future of digital music sharing that fosters creativity while ensuring fair compensation for artists.
INTANGIBLE STATEMENT
This is what I envisioned for this website. The initial goal of this research creation was to educate, through interaction. But it has evolved into a more practical and collaborative project. Because it is the way individuals contribute to an issue (I deeply care about) which brings light to this cause. As a designer and musician, and art being an integral part of my environment, I am concerned about the future of culture. That is, how music is shared, consumed, who are its beneficiaries, and its broader impact–on culture and the planet.
The project has since evolved into an audio archive. Rather than consuming music linearly, as we do with streaming platforms, I designed an interactive 3D graph where nodes trigger sounds. This structure challenges the passive nature of traditional listening, inviting users to explore and engage with sound in a more fluid, organic way; beyond algorhithms and rented platforms.
