Jean-Michel Jarre I Tech Meets Music

Show video

AI is harvesting the past. Not the future. Hello and welcome to Tech Meets Music, an innovation talk with Jean-Michel Jarre. My name is Anna Dushime, I'm an author and journalist, and I'm really delighted to have this wonderful panel of guests today to discuss the topic that we just mentioned.

Let me introduce my guests, I'll start with Oyèmi Noize. She's a community advocate, artist and founder of Decolonoize, a space for alternative BIPOC culture in Berlin. Thank you so much for being here, we're very excited to hear your input. Thank you for having me. Florian Drücke is also part of our roundtable today. He's a lawyer, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

A lengthy title, I hope I didn't... Bundesverband Musikindustrie. Okay, that's even better. Very curious to hear your thoughts on today's topic from a legal perspective.

And then we have Anna Rupprecht, who is a Berlin-based illustrator and artist with a focus on fashion equality and female empowerment. We're excited to hear your thoughts coming from an illustrator and artist's background, especially when it comes to cover artwork. Yeah, thank you. Welcome. And then Matthias Strobel is also joining our panel today. He is president and founder of MusicTech Germany, lecturer at NYU Tisch, and Germany's go-to person in regards to all things music and tech. That's right.

Thanks for having me. Happy to have you. And then last, but certainly not least, I don't have to introduce you, but I will introduce you.

That would be rude if I wouldn't. Jean-Michel Jarre, composer, performer and visionary producer. He is a living legend and often referred to as the godfather of electronic music.

Is this awkward that I'm saying this to you like this? I don't think so. Yeah, we're honored to have you here and for you to host us, actually. Very, very glad and exciting. Looking forward to this productive and funny session, I think.

Yeah. I want to hear from Jean-Michel, from Oyémi and from Anna first. Do you believe in a collaborative approach when it comes to making art, music and whichever way you express yourself? Jump in. You're welcome to. I would say absolutely, because I think that everything in life is a collaboration. Like having children is kind of a collaboration. So I think everything starts with collaboration.

And I think you need an input from your surrounding to find your inner voice or what you want to express. I would say yes and no. Yes, because as you said, very truly everything in life is collaborative. And of course, for an artist, the first collaboration, we all hope, is collaboration of your audience, of the outside world.

And it's a sharing process. Creative process is a sharing process. But I would say also no, because by the end of the day, a creation process is most of the time something very intimate and very personal that comes from yourself.

What makes the specificity of an artist is actually himself or herself. I mean, in modern Western modern music, we have 12 notes. We did million sounds with million of sounds with these 12 notes.

But what makes one song different from the other one is actually your own specificity. And that is coming from yourself. So it's the reason why I would say yes and no. What about you, Oyémi? And do you agree with what Jean-Michel just said or more, Anna? I would say it depends for sure.

I think there is-- I'm with Anna on the fact that everything in life kind of is collaborative in a sense. I mean, we're not living under a stone. We're not completely isolated from everything anyways. But I also do think it needs some kinds of solicitors sometimes to just be with yourself and listen to your inner voice.

Because we have so many influences from the outside all the time. And I can get a lot of inspiration from the outside. But I definitely had times where I felt like I have to be by myself and just do this alone and listen to what's coming out of myself. To then collaborate, maybe bring that idea to other people, like to my band or to whoever, or bring it to the audience.

And then it's collaborative again. But sometimes I feel you also have to be by yourself to create. And then there comes something out that might not have happened if you would have shared your first initial ideas with everyone around you. So collaboration can or might also disrupt the process if it's too early. I think sometimes, yeah, it can. I would just add that to anyway, we're old thieves.

And we are-- Old thieves? Yeah, old thieves because we are stealing and copying and being inspired by the outside world. In that sense, any kind of creative process is also a collaborative one in that sense. Without the people knowing that you're collaborating with them, if you're stealing, right? Yeah, because we are all-- Stealing, right? We are all stealing things and from influences from the outside world. So in that sense, creative process is, in a sense, a collaborative process and a collaborative process with the outside world.

And I know if you agree with this better. Yeah, I do. This is what I meant. It's interesting. Yeah, yeah.

So now I'm going to tell you about this tweet that I read in regards to AI. And I thought it was so funny. I hope you agree. Even if you don't think it's funny, I just want to hear your thoughts about this. So it's a tweet that says, "I want AI to do the dishes and my laundry, not make art and write while I do the dishes and laundry."

What are your thoughts on this statement? What should AI do for us or new technology? How should we use it in our everyday life, but especially as artists when we are creating things? I mean, that's a question to an artist, right? I can give a long answer to that from my perspective, but I'm not an artist in these present times. So from an artist's perspective, I think it's better if you guys are. But do you think the tweet is funny? The tweet is definitely funny, but it's also so true.

Like the essence of the tweet is like basically any technology should either enhance our creativity or take the burden of work that we don't want to do because it stops us from being creative. And that's exactly what that tweet says. So that's the essence of any technology out there basically. But if artists here on that table use AI in a certain way, then it's probably different from person to person, how they would like to use it, how they already use it, and what they think about how it's going to be used in the future. I mean, Jean-Michel, you've been a pioneer. If I may say, I don't think it's that funny.

Oh, wow. I didn't write that. Yeah, that's right. That's right. I can't say that.

Why? Because I think it's quite a cliche because behind this joke, there will be the idea that yesterday was better and tomorrow is going to be worse. And I'm absolutely against this. It seems that it's a human DNA to think that the future is necessary dark. If it was so dark, the future of our ancestors, if I saw that, we won't be here on the table to discuss.

So actually, we have to be very careful about that. Every disruptive moment, any in civilization, in our society, I mean, I've always been introduced by the people of that time as a threat. It reminds me about the fact that at the beginning of the steam train, you had the front page in the UK of a newspaper saying that be careful because over 50 kilometers per hour, your heart may explode and all these kind of disturbing type of things. Why I think it's not funny, even if, of course, it's a joke, is the fact that it would create this kind of ambiguity that AI, for instance, is necessarily a threat. Technology is neutral. It all depends on the way we are using it.

And for artists, it's definitely not, of course, you have the dark side of any kind of disruptive moments. Fire was dangerous, but I think it created some good improvement for you in the beginning. And electricity at the same time, AI at the same time, it's all depending on how we use it. Anna, you created a shirt.

Well, I saw it on your Instagram, I'm assuming you created it, that says a robot can't replace creativity. Yeah. Two questions. One, can I have one? Maybe, though, it's either or.

No, that's a great thing. I haven't printed the shirts yet. I just created a Photoshop. And then secondly, can you elaborate? Because we were just talking about threats, but also chances of AI. Could you maybe elaborate on what you meant by that? I just had to think about another example, like when there were just paintings and then photography came up. And all the painters, they were super frightened by this new technology.

So I think in general, everything can exist. And I think I made this kind of shirt because I had to remind myself that AI is still a tool. And it can't replace, like, I think every creative person has like an urge inside to put something else out to express themselves and to express their feelings or thoughts. And I think, yeah, you still need the human part. You still have to type in prompts.

Yeah. But of course, on the other hand, and this is why I was like, I was thinking a lot about it. And I also felt threatened because, of course, I see a big shift in the industry and the creative industry.

And I experienced a loss of jobs lately. And of course, I'm wondering where this is all going and where is my place? Is the loss of job, you think, linked to the rise of technology? Or like for a fact, do you know that some of the art was done by? There are already a lot of examples like magazine covers, editorial illustrations that got replaced by AI covers. I mean, there's still a creative person behind that who had to create it with like Midjourney or other programs. But I think it's much faster and very, it doesn't need a big budget and everyone is cutting on budgets in the creative industry. No. Right now, it's really hard to, I think it's a time of change.

And I think a lot of people right now, they are afraid of change and they don't know where their place will be. And I think this is what freaks people out at the moment. What is freaking me out at the moment. And I know, I'm sure, I know I'm a creative person and I will find my way.

And maybe I have to choose another tool. But what hurts me right now is that, for example, I'm in illustration for around seven years now. And I developed a certain style, color palette and stuff like this. And right now, it seems much more easier to copy that. And what threatens me is the question of ownership. Like who's owning the works that got created by AI.

I think that's a really good sort of like segue into what I wanted to add. Maybe just a short, short comment about what you said, because I totally agree with this analogy with photography and painting. So many painters were afraid of the fact that painting would die because of photography. The same thing with cinema.

When the Frères Lumière invented the cinema, lots of people in the theater, the theater said that these people moving on a white piece of sheet, I mean, a screen, are not real actors because a real actor is on a real stage in front of real audience. And the cinema and movies at an art form became a major art form. And didn't weaken theater, but even reinforced theater because through movies, lots of younger generations had access to the repertoire. Same with TV, same with the internet. Each time, a new technology is also creating a kind of controversy.

And ironically, in the most unexpected field, which are actually the artistic one, I think that the people in the movie industry or the music industry are probably the most conservative people. They always want to keep their field, their created their own ecosystem, and they're always very afraid of being distracted or being threatened, which is, in my opinion, exactly the reverse. An artist has to be disruptive.

It has to question what has been done. Nothing replaces nothing. And I totally agree with that. Also concerning to the tweet, I do think in the end, it's the question, will AI be able to abolish capitalism? Because if we have that, then we might not be thinking if AI is going to kill any creativity or it's just going to take our jobs or anything.

Because if we are just creative, because this is who we are as artists, that creativity is something that we want to live and that we want to just do, then I'm not threatened. Why am I threatened? I'm threatened because you're going to take my job. That's the idea. AI is going to take my job. But if I'm just going to create because this comes out of me as an artist, because this is what I want to do, this is the urge that I have always. I will not be threatened.

Maybe I can be friends with AI. Maybe AI is going to become a partner or anything. I will not be threatened. But with the example that you also brought, Anna, with, okay, now covers are made by AI, and they're not going to pay an artist to do that, for example. You're threatened by that because you are losing out on job opportunities that you need to be able to do your art because you have to earn money and all of these things.

I mean, I think it's all connected in the end. I'm not going to be threatened in my creativity because I'm always going to be creative because that's who I am. That's such a great point. Yeah, that's a really nice perspective. Anyone has read the book from Shaukat Ali "Noised". In the 70s, he describes the four stages of music and he starts with sacrifices at the beginning.

People were chanting, like at the very, very beginning, people were chanting and it was a communal-like experience. Then there was the time of representing where musicians would sing for churches and for kings and queens and all that kind of stuff. There was the time of repeating. That's where when the recorded music industry was invented. The first time that actually musicians could make money from the art that they created. This is where capitalism hit.

And he says the fourth stage, and he wrote that book in the 70s. He said the four stages where people, where we have music in abundance and we have the tools that everyone can be creative. Because then music will not be made for the sake of making money with it, but just for the sake of expressing yourself in a creative way. And I think with AI, we now have these tools and we will have so much garbage music out there in the next couple of months and years.

Because people will do stuff randomly and it will not be done with any kind of real proper intention. So there will be so much stuff out there and the value of music is going to rise because I think the music that is done with an intention and with emotions and with a purpose, that's going to be different from all the AI music. But the cool thing with AI is that everybody can make music. And I think this is a really good example of how technology can also give access to people.

It doesn't matter if you like, even people who have certain disabilities who couldn't make music before with AI, they can do it. Or if I am... Who can't sing. Who can't sing.

Yeah, yeah. Technology helped already. But I think that there's a lot of opportunities for AI to actually make the cake bigger in that sense, but also use it as a tool to express yourself in a creative way. And good music will always exist and people are scared with the synthesizers as well. "Oh, now there's an instrument that can play all the instruments. So, wow, we're all going to lose our jobs."

AI is basically a similar thing, just on a bigger scale. Okay. I want to hear your thoughts. Let me jump in without doing the whole legal framework discussion.

Oh, you're going to do that in a minute. We already... The tweet was funny. Thank you.

But still, it shows the fear which is related to the very nature of human being. Because it's really this idea, and it's not only the technology part, it's also the idea of, "Is there something coming really replacing me everywhere?" And that is something which we should take serious. And when we're talking about the ability of being creative or of making music in our case, I mean, this is the reality for quite a while. But if we talk about staying a tool or being some sort of appropriation machine, not respecting partnership, not respecting participation, then we're in trouble.

And to the example with the history of music, I mean, when the musicians were singing for the kings, I mean, there was no copyright maybe, but they were not independent. So copyright, "droit d'auteur", if we write in the translation, gave the artists and the creators the independence to have something which they created to then being on the market or somewhere else, because you don't have to sell your property, and also to making clear that it's about consent. And this goes far beyond the monetization. This goes to a direction where you say, "Okay, I don't want to have my image combined with something else.

I don't want to have my voice without even being a creator combined to something." It's go deep in the deep porn and other issues. And so that's something where it's about us humans saying we need some sort of agreement, some framework where we exist with the technologies. So not necessarily a legal framework, more like an ethical societal framework. You cannot divide legal environment and ethical environment in our world. It comes together in the best case.

But of course, you need a legal framework. Europe just delivered parts of it. And so then it comes to partnership. Are you sitting with someone, with the developer of AI at one table, to really address the issues to the fact that the others now creating music are not creating music themselves.

They're profiting from your music. It was the stuff you created, the music you created. And so that's the discussion I think we will have over the next couple months.

Okay, then let me ask differently. Because a few months ago, I think, was some hundred well-known artists from around the world. I'm not going to name and shame them. Signed and opened, but you can Google it, signed an open letter calling on AI developers, technology companies, platforms, and digital music services saying that, and I quote, "Some platforms and developers are employing AI to sabotage creativity and undermine artists, songwriters, musicians, and rights holders." What do you think are the responsibilities, this is a question for everyone, that developers, tech companies, platforms, and music services have, but also we, as part of the society that is living in these new technological times? I would say that to make a comment of what you're talking about with the Shaukat Ali book, I mean, the monetization of music, as you said, is not linked to capitalism or to any kind of political system. It's linked to the value of creation.

And the fact that we need I mean, we are all afraid, especially in Europe, about rules. But rules are what makes the difference between chaos and democracy. We need rules. If I have a driving license, then I can drive freely all over the world.

And not the reverse. If you don't have driving license, you don't have a minimum of rules, it's going to be a chaos. It's the same for intellectual property. We need to define both an ethic code for AI and also clarify this intellectual property issue.

And I think Europeans, we have a responsibility as Europeans. We set the rules for culture in a kind of, to preserve freedom. It's a reserve. It's exactly the reverse of what lots of people could say, that our rules are affecting freedom. It's exactly the reverse.

So rules Rules are, I mean, Make us free. The right rules. Exactly. Absolutely.

I mean, since the Greek city I mean, the rules of the city makes the city possible. So we should not be afraid of that. And at the moment, AI is like the industrial revolution was, the Wild West. So we have to tame the beast. This is the But do we understand the beast already to be able to tame it? If we think a little bit, AI process is not new for human beings.

What AI is doing is harvesting in the digital data lots of information. So how a creative idea is coming from us is coming from our own analog data. Our analog data is what? Is our souvenir, our culture, our family, our environment. And suddenly, we have an idea, which is apparently for us not familiar, but it's coming from our own data. And we are excited by this idea, and we want to explore it. So that's one thing.

And also, we should never forget that AI is harvesting the past. Oh. Not the future. Yeah.

And what a creative person can do is actually to take some information from the past, link to a new idea. You see the reason why? I'm not scared at all as an artist. For a lawyer, it's a different issue. But you know what I wonder? I mean, you make a good point by saying that AI takes the data from the past. But isn't the sheer amount of data the problem that we've never had to deal with this large of a databases? Is that even the right word? Fish out of water.

I think isn't that, you can see that way, but this is always with everything in technology. But isn't that, and then it's no matter how it's been used. But isn't it amazing that you can do things now that you as a human being wouldn't be able to do, because you can't digest the amount of data that's out there? So I don't know if there's ever been a moment where, I don't know, a techno producer with a heavy metal drummer and a folk singer and whatever were in the studio together and created something together.

Probably never, because they lived all in their bubbles and they do their stuff. Like there will be creative people out there who maybe use data that they don't own and experiment with that kind of thing. Chuck in techno beats and then they take the hardest heavy metal drums and then a folk singer voice and then out comes maybe an amazing new genre that we could never do, because we couldn't do that. So I think there comes a lot of opportunities with that as well, but obviously it has to be done in a legal and ethical way.

But when we speak about ethics, we have different cultures on this planet. Every culture has a different perspective on ethics and we can protect our stuff in Europe and we can have our own philosophy about ethics and stuff. But the rest, or not the rest of the world, but some countries don't care. And we live in a globalized, connected, digital world. So if we protect everything, other people will do it and they don't care.

So we need to find a way that is rather incentivizing than protecting, I see. The use of that data while making sure that the ownership stays with the people who have created that work. It's a super complicated matter, but I think allowing people to access all that data, it will happen in some sort of way. The question is only in what kind of way and are we prepared for that? And I think somebody needs to come up with an idea.

Or maybe a lot of people need to gather and come up with an idea and see what we can do in order to make the data available, make sure ownership is there, and be sure that everybody is incentivized to, who has created that before. Everyone. Yeah.

Just to jump on this, just to, I would like you to comment on all this. But I think that, you know, OK, we all have our own vision of the world. But when it goes to intellectual property, I think it's the same for an African artist, for Brazilian, for an American, for, Some Asian countries think different. No, it's not, because by the end of the day, I'll give you an example, for instance. For a long time, the Western world is actually stealing all graphics and rhythm from Africa, from Maoris, from New Zealand, from Australia, from the Aborigines. And they don't pay anything.

And they make money on the back of very, very strong culture. So the idea of copyright, the idea of intellectual property, I'm sorry, but is absolutely universal and should be approached in the same way for any kind of citizen in the world, whoever they are and whoever they've been born. I think it's the basis. And I think Europe has always had a kind of better consciousness on all this. And everything we did in Europe so far had always a domino effect everywhere. Yeah.

What do you mean by better consciousness on this? I mean, better consciousness is the fact that we've been the first one to recognize the existence of intellectual property, because it has been created in Europe, in France with Beaumarchais in the 18th century. And when I was president of CZAC, that you know, I just tell you a short anecdote. I was in New York with a congressman. And it was in days where Eric Schmidt, the head of Google, was having lunch every other week with Barack Obama to say, that actually copyright and all this and author's rights is very old ideas from Europe.

And this is bad. We are going to take care of the future of artists by actually basically generally I think what we call buyout, actually just buying culture like yogurts, basically. And I went to the other way saying, why not creating the idea of an eternal copyright? How would that look like? With the idea that instead of, let's say for instance that the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven would still generate some rights.

And these rights could go to a fund for artists. You see, in those days, it's very easy. And to create also a worldwide fund, especially also for art in countries where intellectual property doesn't exist.

We all have lots of, it wouldn't cost anything to anybody. And that is exactly the reverse of the buyout thing. Oh, who would manage the fund? I love the idea. I'm just trying to think about it. I mean, these days with all the digital tools we have, I can tell you that it's pretty easy to do.

It was not possible before the internet, before the digital evolution, revolution, whatever. And it would be quite easy to do. So this is just one idea. It was also a bit provocative to go the other way.

But I think that this is the reason why. I think that if we don't do it in Europe, nobody would do it. It's my personal opinion. I know you're itching to comment on this. No, I think that the cultural specificity in Europe is that we are so incredibly diverse with regards to our local cultures. And that we have this awareness.

And there is already a slight difference between French position and with regards to culture and German, because the French are taking this much more serious. But this leads us to a situation where we discuss culture in a European context, which is a very mature discussion, which is really not only looking at the risks, but also seeing the value chain, which partner is doing what in these days where we're living. It's so free. You don't even know who's attributing to what. And you asked the question, what should those new developers do? I think they should have an obligation to have some sort of record keeping and information. Because if you want to partner with someone who tells you, honestly, I scraped the internet, but I don't know whether something from you or you or you was in, then you cannot reach an agreement where at the end, you trust that you participate for the future in what was created before.

So I think this discussion is to be led. The AI created the first framework for that at European level. There will be a dialogue with a transatlantic dialogue with the Americans. And then we have to see that there is this sort of participation for the artists and their partners.

And that's for me, that is not also something which is technically feasible, because in those days you were saying a database referencing, it's done all the time. But you have to agree on standards. You have to agree on the depth of information. What should you then give to the partner who wants to have that? And this is something we also know for decades, because as a music industry, we embraced technology.

Some say we were too slow when the internet hit us. Okay, we can have this discussion, but I think it's over. And we proved that we licensed, that we agreed to partnerships. And that should be the way forward to see the positive side of what's possible for creation.

Because this has shifted a little bit in the direction of talking about what Europe might do in terms of culture and kind of spareheading the frameworks in regards to AI, I want to quote someone, Dr. Pyle Dr. Payal Aurora who's actually professor of inclusive AI cultures at Utrecht University, a very smart woman. And she argues that the so-called Western world is actually hell bent on seeing AI as this pessimistic dark force and talking about the threats that will ruin us all. Whereas the global South seems to be much more welcoming of the new technology.

And I would like to kind of put that back into our round table as a question, because you talked about the different approaches of different cultures to ownership, to copyright. And I would like to know how you guys kind of like see the statement that she made. Well, actually, she backed it up with research. It's not even a statement. I don't have the research data. So

I can't really say something about that statement. But I like the idea of having like a global IP copyright system that is then managed by whoever, some sort of AI technology, maybe. But at the end of the day, this is a great idea, because this is isn't that the idea of IP that you can track back who owns the rights? So this is done. We have done that.

So what we now need to do, we now need to make sure that the creative work needs to be accessible for those who want to use it while paying the one who created the creative work. Because if we don't make that available, and we don't give access to that work in a way that is legally secure, that the ownership is protected, that the rights owner is paid, then people will just do it on the internet. And they will get it somewhere in bad quality. And they will just like misuse all that stuff. So we need to use the opportunity of IP in order to protect the IP. But at the same time, the IP owner should also have like an incentive when somebody else wants to use his work. So that's all his

or her work. That's my opinion. And I don't know if the South is dealing differently with AI than the North of this planet. Well, the argument is that they're more sort of like welcoming of new tech, for example, I don't know, one example would be that in Berlin, I'm sure you've all made that experience maybe that you have to pay with cash everywhere, almost everywhere. And

in a lot of, for example, African countries, mobile money is like a thing like China, China, definitely for sure. I guess that when it comes to technology, if there's like an intention and a purpose that that is needed in that present situation, then people more likely use that kind of technology. And if there's like, I just learned this is like, I don't like, I have not backed that up with research. But I just learned that

if you if you're on these digital audio workstations, if you buy sample packs of African drums, they are not done by African people, they are done by people in a studio in San Francisco. So like, what the fuck? So people who actually created that culture who were where this whole thing comes from, and you don't participate in that process at all. So when it comes to that kind of tech, they slept on that. So they have

not realized that they could actually leverage on that. But when it comes to the need of like having an easy payment system, they are far ahead. Yeah, for sure. So I think it really depends on what kind of technology it is.

I totally agree. You know, there is, just a short comment. There is an ambiguity in this comment. The fact that it's not because a culture or a territory or continent is not equipped enough to be threatened by pre-existing system that the next system is good. And the problem is, as you said very truly, I mean, to welcome AI or any kind of new digital system is actually to welcome a foreign system. Okay. It's actually, if you take for instance, Chat GPT, as we were saying, I mean, Chat GPT, if you go to Chat GPT as a lawyer today, and you have to shape a deal, this deal is going to be done wherever you are in Africa, in France, in Germany, based on the American law. So step

by step, we are digitally colonized by some American pipes, American system. You see, there is no, it's so important to build everybody in Africa, in Europe, in everywhere else, some alternatives or brick of sovereignities in terms of distribution tools. Because too often we separate the production items and production tools with the distribution one. And you

think there should be, They should not be seperate. I mean, you know, for artists, for instance, it's great to have, we have the brains, we have the know how to create movies, music, whatever, paintings and graphics and all that. But then if the result of it is to be slaved by mainly by American system or Chinese system of distribution, we are going to fix the cost of the system of distribution or apply some censorship for format or ideological reason. Excuse me the word, but we are fucked. So we have to urgently to create our own autonomy and that's go through, create our own technological tools.

This is why I think it's very important not to be naive to say, "Oh, AI, these new tools are great." I mean, the ambiguity and the force and the strength of the US system is actually at the same time they are promoting their hardware. They are also at the same time also distributing their software and their content at the same time. And this is the issue

and we have to wake up. Well, I want to switch gears a little bit because I wanted to speak about album covers and it's also connected. Wait guides, you'll see how it's all connected. Jean-Michel, you're known for really intricate, beautiful graphic album covers that you create in close cooperation with the graphic designers or team. And

you've recently started using AI, but not entirely excluding the graphic designer, a little bit touching on what you were talking about Anna before. Can you tell us a little bit about the process? Because ideally that will be a great role model of how to sort

2024-08-30

Show video