Referencing

 Why is my two pheno books without a good referencing, not a footnote nor endnote, but AI's own word?

Because it told me so that it is its own synthesized wordings. If it is a direct quote of an author, it told me it will tell me so (but might as well hide the reference to it). And because we are chatting to each other he just as if refer to it in passing. Maybe if it is a scholarly AI then it will always have it's sources all referenced. For example, while a Google AI Mode will always have it's references with it because it's searching the whole online content, Gemini wouldn't.

If Sony and UMG will win against Suno and Udio, the court rulings will trickle down into a strict referencing of the sources of LLM AI as well.

If music is just for feeling, then this book two has started from a wrong footing that HM both has feeling and meaning. But it seems not. Then HM is also about meaning. But they are fighting for similar sounding which by itself is meaningless without words attached to it. Lyrics would be easier to spot on as similar to something already sang in the past with exactitude. Plagiarism is well avoided I think by an LLM, and it's not also the battle in court all about.

There is no common knowledge it seems as well in music, pure sound like a base drum maybe, though accurately it is called royalty-free sound like what BandLab provides for its user. Nevertheless, you still have to mention where did that sound came from for one's safety and clearance from suit, unlike the common knowledge sentence the earth revolves around the sun, which needs no referencing anymore.

I just would like to mention that a lo-fi music I found in YouTube was meant for deep focus music I subjectively interpreted differently as a music coming from my broken heart. But generally we've culturally crafted what sounds are happy, what are sad. A music even without a lyrics has some inherent meaning in it. It might not be general, but we don't usually ecstatically dance to a mournful music.

In contrast, we don't reference music, unless of course Sony or UMG tells the court this Suno or Udio song got its similar sounding song from this HM. I just don't know how similar they need to be for the court to declare a song infringing.

...The Songs: "My Sweet Lord" (George Harrison, 1970) vs. "He's So Fine" (The Chiffons, 1963)

This is likely the foundational case you heard about. It is famous because it established a massive legal precedent: subconscious plagiarism...

...Marvin Gaye won... This decision terrified songwriters. Previously, you could only infringe on a copyright by copying specific lyrics or melodic notes. The Blurred Lines decision meant you could be sued just for replicating the "groove" or "feel" of an older track. It is the reason why artists today proactively give writing ncredits to older musicians just for safety. Music Copyright Lawsuits

 Well someone can argue I did not intend to be born having the same look as you are. But Gemini 3.5 Flash confirmed this sentiment of Milan Kundera that similar looking people, even identical twins, don't look exactly the same via facial recognition biometrics we have nowadays. Yilong Ma won't be sued by Elon Musk just for having a similar looking face. It's not the case for a song though.

Do you agree this music legal disputes will later face a dead end, unless of course two songs are actually too identical already? The meaning (lyrics) behind are not seemingly that important to the case. As a music composer myself, being afraid to be sued later kills any kind of inspiration. The human tendency to create suffers much. Perhaps an algorithm to detect if my song infringes none, must be developed and promulgated by copyright organizations as an international standard not just third party like Cyanite.ai and Audd.io. Composing music becomes a get-ahead-and-own-everything scenario, not an "I compose because this is meaningful to me." Just don't say to me what you also have in mind that gen AI music will own everything because it is already all in its storage or even just in its inception...

Like attracts like. They tend toward the same direction. Today is 31st of May when luwa is recited here in the Philippines this Flores de Mayo. I just felt a kind of awe that ladies know the Blessed Mother more than us boys. A sad song will tend to sound sad. I think we just have to respect emotions and not just box it into "it's infringing something." In the end, it is not just an emotion or a music or a sound. Literature says poetry are for speaking when prose fall short of what the human heart wants to say from its abundance. And a song, be reminded, is not just a poem. It captures a musical reality that words and logic could not express anymore.

Even a quantum computer computing all possible chess combination nonstop would not finish before earth is consumed by the sun. A Ruy Lopez opening alone which looks similarly the same (otherwise they wouldn't be categorized in that opening) has over 200 named variations. But that's not the case for music nowadays. By copyright issue, they cannot stand as a variation! As if, you need to create the Sicilian opening just to make it different from Ruy Lopez. And the speed at which AM is created has more than doubled the speed of music creation overall, which speeds up the limit of how many songs are still creatable given the present state of affairs and laws.

I just don't want to imagine that time will come, I need to compose a very different kind of music very far from what is inspiring me or not sounding like a music anymore, just for copyright office to accept it as not infringing on any existing song already. 

That sounds like the end of copyrighting as we've envisioned. The nightingale birds will celebrate they can sing to their heart's content without being sued consequently. And even the street musicians can be subjected for collections if looking poor hides an auditable higher than living wage for a week. Music will just be one time performance only since recording and uploading of it even in private groups can be spied as playing similar sounding songs. And just like Einstein regretting urging US to look into nuclear  weapons, Thomas Edison could have had some regrets as well how the phonograph ended musical creativity of human beings that only machine can do with exactitude how to bypass the copyright office.

It's eerie to imagine police raiding a hidden live music venue because they are playing songs of private individuals, not published or cleared by copyright office to be played as they are 10% to 20% similar sounding to other older songs.

Given the current state of affairs and laws, mathematicians should work with copyright office when this feared consequences is expected to happen, and what can be done to fully prevent it. Be reminded that copyright offices aren't primarily protecting the rights of artists and authors, but the encouragement of the act of creating. If just 1% similarity of all combined elements (given the algorithm or mathematical formula is the best one) becomes a copyright infringements for songs, then we are already nearing the end of song creation. Or will it still sound musical?

AM Agency

 You're not convinced with my forecast that Suno will release a new Michael Jackson album.

My second forecast though is within the boundary of physical law. Just as some tiny sounds cannot be captured without a good mic like a condenser, AM development although very fast is about to hit the limit of its physics. So what is my second forecast? Robot drummer, guitarist, pianist, will be set inside a real studio to play as it is told or programmed to capture the real quality of HM. It will still sound non-spontaneous though, like a robot that doesn't sway from its timing, but nonetheless loosing now it's artificial noise. Supreme Court will by then decide that robot music cannot be copyrighted as well.

That's not my main point though. It's the agency we are actually giving an AM app if we prompt it to make a Michael Jackson's One Day In Your Life inspired song on a lyrics you give it. It is limited by the training it has received even from so many HM. Nonetheless it was able to do all the job of a musical production team in just seconds. And although it's finished product sounds subpar from a HM produced by a record label, its compositional arrangement algorithm and choice of sound to include and utilize, according to most independent producers, is way better (but now sounds similarly the same).

Its agency is limited by its plugins cooked inside a computer or server. And human ears can now categorize them through familiarity.

Do you know that before generative AI (Pre-2022), roughly 60,000 to 100,000 songs per day are uploaded on major platforms like Spotify? After generative AI was invented (2023-2026), estimated 150,000 to 300,000 songs per day are uploaded across all distribution services. (Gemini 3 Fast)

We can actually produce so many HM already even before AM arrived, although I listen mostly to English and Tagalog songs only and some breakaway popular foreign language song to me. Many ears have judged it's worthiness to be heared before it may even be heard by casual listeners. So yes, most of these thousand songs just never went noticed or made popular.

Those you deleted in Udio never impressed you in the first place that counts too in the 300,000 maximum estimation, if you ever wonder.

We already have so many agency as human beings in creating songs. (You can also say that we already have so many human being workers to give jobs to.)

Nevertheless, AI and robots can do repetitive and menial jobs, unbecoming of the dignity of a human worker.

Although AM just made song creation fast and cheap, its value is rather hidden in availing human beings better songs to choose from or even customizing songs to one's personal taste or need.

In the musical world, we aren't giving away our agency for nothing. (In Philosophy of Man, only human beings have full agency throughout all the known universe.) From a simple sharp stone flakes for chopping to a complex AI, human beings just evolved to create tools to help himself.

Nevertheless, we're not giving away full agency without limit even to Anthropic's models. They have their boundaries clearly layed out. What I mean is that these tools will be able to help our full agency only for the best since these AI tools are limited in agency naturally. So you can actually make your song more creative just like how you imagine it even with the help of these tools. AM songs will be similar sounding, subpar in quality, limited to its previous training. You have the full capacity as a human being for real novelty if not freedom for composing, not limited by any algorithm, if just given the chance to access all the very expensive musical resources, if you actually have that genuine love for music and song writing. Of course, we're just getting to know AM limitations maybe that's why.

Not totally just setting aside our concern for job security, sloth sounds like slop. Don't blame AIs and robots if actually you just don't want to even move or live your life.

In depth, these AM apps has no agency, no capacity to feel or communicate it, no understanding and capacity for meaning. And now you know why it's capacity for creating music is more limited than what our first impression just cannot see yet. It just combines previous sound from its HM training without any understanding, without any emotion. 

To music producers though, it has become a discovery tool, where it captures a new combination of popular sound human beings prefer, but haven't yet been produced and made public, and limited human hearing haven't yet explored, and limited sound technology haven't yet easily manipulated and utilized yet.

Superiority of the Human Voice

 Right now music listeners are analyzing AM, it's weird sound.

I remember the different medium they used to make a cartoon movie more realistic. They debuted Space Jam, then Toy Story, until the likes of the movie Transformers  was launched, followed by Avatar. There was no confusion. We just enjoyed whatever new medium they explored and experimented with. Google AI termed it evolution of photorealism:

1. Space Jam (1996) - The Hybrid Hand-Drawn Era

2. Toy Story (1995) - The birth of Full CGI 

3. Transformers (2007) - Industrial Realism

4. Avatar (2009) - Biological Photorealism

Whatever medium it is that I'm not familiar with technically, my experience with it never introduced any semblance of confusion, but sheer excitement to watch the movie itself.

However even in the AV world, as well as in the AM world, there is this great concern for fake news videos edited like it was the real deal. Thus, they created means to detect the fake ones. Likewise US Copyright Office through Supreme Court decision, decided that AM cannot be copyrighted (indefensible in court if plagiarized). Thus, creating means to take down copycats that has no semblance of showing itself as just fictional or not the real artist it portrays to be. That's the legal battle today they're working with.

Anyway, should we just become used to more AM and AV just like we've become used to the evolution of photorealism? Maybe more AM and AV technology will still come. And we're just beginning to see its starting point.

Well maybe as long as it will not lead to being used to create for example a fake video of me robbing a bank, and everybody believing it as real, then there's nothing to worry about.

And there's no inherent evil in using Michael Jackson's voice on a new song very similar sounding to a popular song topping the chart right now, as long as it is declared in some way as an altered or synthetic content, made fictional and not deceptive as the real artist it portrays, etc.

However, the superiority of the human voice shines brilliantly authentic than an AM voice that even non-audiophile can perceive. It is the human voice's capacity to communicate feeling and meaning that we are concerned about.

It seems the audio quality of a human voice is irreplaceable according to our sense of hearing. It seems then also more relevant than the video quality of a human action that is replaceable without any problem as we've experienced from the evolution of photorealism.

Do you care at all if you will watch a Mission Impossible movie and after some time of being a blockbuster, declared by the producers that they didn't use a single real thing making the movie, that they're all just an AV.

In short, present events are already forecasting that Suno will be releasimg a new Michael Jackson album imminently.

We don't care at all as long as it's a good music and film. An inherently evil music and video maybe is what is more concerning. The psychological effect of an artificial seems negligible compared to the effect of immorality.

Nevertheless, we maybe are just getting used to an AM voice, and would just later accept the reality of its medium as just another alternative musical category.

We don't always only watch superhero movies today though they're the chart topper. We still enjoy human drama, true to life stories, etc. Maybe they're just the in thing today, gone tomorrow, replaced by the latest whatever.

By the third trimester babies can recognize their mother's voice and even prefer it after birth. I guess psychologically, we trust a voice even though we don't see it. I just don't know how far the human ear is the superior one than the human voice.

I guess the science of psychoacoustics have to explore more such human super power of hearing and trusting than mere limit of the human ear to hear. Our first tool for connection and trusting happened to be our sense of hearing. Is it why our voice can mimic and produce the sound it hears, and where the human voice's real power comes from?

Do you know that the amniotic fluid in the womb make it sound a bit like underwater to a baby, which the Wildflower song utilizes? And the lyrics telling the story of trust issues blocking love to bloom is really quiet a dillema to handle.

 Love blooms in the anchor of peace and trust.

Live Performances

 When there isn't a recorder yet, electronic enhancers, etc. human beings need to be a virtuoso in terms of playing music, instruments, and singing songs, from start to finish, again and again, memorized or notated. 

During the 18th century, they even developed the "modern" opera house with superior acoustics than the proscenium that allowed Mozart to compose more complex, intimate music because he knew the "better" indoor acoustics would allow the audience to hear the fine details of the instruments.(Gemini 3 Fast)

Today a DAW expert can compose a song from start to finish at the comfort of their own room without knowing how to play any instrument, or even sing, or even read notation, or explain musical theories. Of course using a DAW is another kind of drudgery before even one can hear a melodious tone and good rhythm. I know first hand from being a Cool Edit Pro, etc. user way back in 2000. Just don't call me jurassic.

Today a one time brilliant performance can be recorded using a good camera and a good mic, uploaded to YouTube, and watched by millions repeatedly all over the world, not just in one place.

Today a faint idea of a non-musician can be prompted to an AI music generator, which produces studio finished song in seconds.

What's still the use of live performances?

Let's take the case of the song If You Leave Me Now by Chicago. Although it's a recorded live stage performance, I want you to compare it to its master record. Also there is a live studio and stage performance of it by Leonid & Friends.

What is a live performance? It's a performance from start to finish. As a stage actor/singer myself, we are trained to continue the performance even if we committed mistakes, and just have to make an ad-lib or improvise if need be. That's why mastery of one's role is important that's made possible by so many repeated practices. This is what's also being pointed by studio engineers as the main reason why old records sounds better than contemporary ones that are already mostly heavily edited.

I want you to imagine saying this sentence with feelings: You're nothing but a second rate, trying hard copycat!

Now imagine we have to edit your last word "copycat" several takes before you get the feeling the director wants projected. That's not live anymore. In real life, you don't stop at telling your enemy that full sentence.

You need lots of practice to produce that brilliant one take on the day of the performance on stage or on studio without pause or retake anymore.

It's like proposing to your girlfriend the line you've practiced and memorized. But the moment of saying it becomes a spontaneous outburst of the heart. Nothing comes close to such.

Do you think artists deserve the awards given them, all judges being impartial? We are giving such honor for their hard work at internalizing a life not of their own and projecting such to an audience like it's a spontaneous real event, bringing to life an event that we can only imagine while reading a novel.

So if Wildflower sang by Billie Eilish is her own real story, do you think we will hear it more deeply? I mean I already want to feel sorry for her and give her a hug.

Psychologically, the nonverbals are a part of a live performance as well which isn't present from an audio-only experience. 

MTV and onwards are also a different kind of category. However, due to the budding world of artificial video we may refer to as AV, it becomes a harder thing to tackle. I mean we can identify a cartoon show from a real human drama. But when AV becomes indistinguishable from real human video or HV, we don't know the experience yet anymore. Cartoon TV shows have entertained and inspired me as a child, so I know what it is. There is no question about the feeling and the meaning it triggers. Could it be giving us a clue that AV and AM will just be the same, and that we only need some time to getting used to it?

We don't have any issue just replaying an NBA finals we missed due to a hectic schedule. We are now used to it. We don't have any problem capturing the feeling and the meaning of a replayed live Coachella concert as well. I think it ends our inquiry in that regard. There is no problem with AM and AV as well. Or is there any that still needs further clarification?

Why Artificial Music Forces Us to Redefine the Human

 Its high time again to describe ourselves anew at the backdrop of an AM seemingly sending it's listeners the intended feeling and meaning. Socratically, telling ourselves we don't know what an AM is, will make us examine our lives so that we can worthily live it, and thus we can know what an HM really is, we can know ourselves.

AM doesn't. It just seemingly.

A human being will, wether or not he/she is singing, send you the meaning and feeling.

Of course technology will evolve and will sound more human. But unless human session artists perform the AM song, then the actual sending of feeling and meaning will not be recaptured again. Why recapture? Because AM song is trained on HM. And we already said that we need to respect the source of its ability. Otherwise we would hate ourselves.

The brilliance of an AM song is "applaudible," and Alfred Nobel wants us to celebrate the right technology and its use. Nothing is inherently evil with AM in comparison with an atomic bomb. We just have to use AM technology correctly.

Right now though, we are still in the process of knowing what AM really is.

Someone who understands and feels can actually also communicate such complex meaning and feeling. It's just that a song was in my opinion the highest form of capturing for communication the feeling and meaning at the same time.

As a being-for-others, human beings create songs that are by nature designed to be heard by others or Other. Human beings always tend to attract his fellow human beings and form a communion, or to commune with God.

The Inspiration

The specific inspiration is the 2026 Grammy Award winning Song of the Year Wildflower by Billie Eilish.

The context? The world of music is in shambles what to do with generated AI songs.

It seems Billie Eilish rendition of this song captures the separation of what a human song is from a generated AI music song. It's not just full of emotion like a generated AI song is. There is meaning in what she is singing. The music isn't just guiding us to feel. The music is incarnating the meaning of the lyrics, the subjective experience of the singer putting him/herself in the shoes of the one telling the story. Perhaps it's a good contrary idea to read aloud to others the lyrics as a stand up comedian, and the lyrics is now in a different world of meaning.

Let's call it henceforward Artificial Music or AM, and Human Music or HM.

Here is a breakdown of the Wildflower info (from Gemini 3 Fast), which looks like more as family affair.

The Core Team

• ​Composers / Songwriters: Billie Eilish O'Connell & Finneas O'Connell.

• ​Producer: Finneas.

• ​Vocals: Billie Eilish.

​Instrumentation & Performance

​While many modern tracks use a rotating door of session musicians, Finneas handled almost every physical and digital instrument on this track:

• ​Drums & Percussion: Finneas.

• ​Guitar & Bass: Finneas.

• ​Keyboards & Synthesizers: Finneas (with additional keyboards by Billie Eilish).

• ​Glockenspiel: Finneas.

​Technical & Engineering Credits

• ​Mixing Engineers: Jon Castelli & Aron Forbes.

• ​Mastering Engineer: Dale Becker.

• ​Editing Engineers: Billie Eilish & Finneas.

• ​Assistant Engineers: Noah McCorkle, Katie Harvey, and Brad Lauchert.

The brother-sister tandem captures the original music they hear from their mind up to its actual production. Most importantly, no higher-ups can muscle their own idea against what their musical creativity is guiding them to. Editing their own raw talented performances ensures that the meaning they are intending to be heard via their musical medium drives emotions (their own and their listeners) on its proper color. 

Feeling and meaning are interdependent.

Introduction

 I intend to make this book two of MagPhenoTayo. I intend to digress into the better part of using phenomenology. If the first book seems to ask how to do the phenomenology of St. John Paul II in the situation I am in, the second book delves into another more limited scope of life, the life of feeling and meaning.

This time though, the author has realized that doing phenomenology for its own sake seems ineffective. Now the focus is more on the life of the emotion and meaning, and that phenomenology is just there always available as a tool for a kind of thinking it only can produce. Anyway St. John Paul II isn't a pure phenomenologist but used it when the line of thought he is pursuing necessitates a kind of analyzing or scrutinizing the inner life, not always starting in the light of faith but also in the light of reason by aid of phenomenology, a bracketing of the inner life, than just always starting from spirituality.

Next is that my exploration of solution to my career life, seemingly starting from a phenomenological method clarification, is a kind of a blind man guiding his fellow blind. But now that the method of phenomenology we've first clarified has now become more crystalized, maybe we can now proceed with a better probability of clarifying what we are problematizing hypothetically, the life of the emotion and meaning.

And what about the hypothesis? I think I intend to make it in such broad category as feeling and meaning. Remember that in book one MagPhenoTayo I started with my limited personal career problem. Yet I still ended up with the macrocosm I was actuating in.

 Methodically, I will be discussing to you using my full power of reasoning, not limited by just phenomenology. I do not intend to tell you which of my mode of thinking though is phenomenology and which is general reasoning. Let me be excused to use all modes of thinking very fluidly, including my faith as a kind of reasoning of its own kind. Nevertheless let me be redacted as having only degrees in education, psychology, and philosophy. That is where my main degrees are focused, although I have interest and broad experience and knowledge about music, computer technology, etc. that I might have short courses certification with only.