Have you ever heard of “soundalikes”? They are music products often found in highly commercial areas of the music business, such as advertising, and are specifically created to sound extremely similar to already existing pieces of music. Soundalikes are problematic. They do not follow the typical intrinsic motivation of music creation to be original and to strive for novelty, it is difficult to perceive their production as “creative” or “creativity,” and they strongly suggest that copyright infringement is always imminent when a soundalike is commissioned and subsequently composed.

Despite these problems, commissions that encourage the composition of similar pieces of music – and possibly even soundalikes – are part of the everyday creative labor of composers. Soundalikes can result from creative processes that are commissioned directly by an individual (such as a film director) or by organizations such as advertising agencies or corporations. There are many reasons to commission a music piece that is supposed to sound similar to another piece of music, such as problems with licensing the original (license too expensive or rightsholders not interested in licensing) or the desire to retain control over the editing of a piece of music in a process of synchronization.

We do not know much about the production of soundalikes in particular or about the production of musical similarity in general. These music production processes can be linked to what creativity research has called the “dark side” of creativity. These music productions and the processes from which they emerge are dark sides because they contradict our ethical assumptions about creativity and the ownership of original ideas; however, they are also dark sides because we usually tend to overlook or even avoid looking at them because they do not fit well with what we are usually interested in when studying creativity, music composition, or especially the commissioning of music compositions. Rather than offering a normative perspective on whether soundalikes should be produced, in my presentation at the workshop, I emphasized a practice perspective as the primary methodology for learning about how such creation processes unfold, who is involved, and how the individuals and organizations involved deal with the various problems associated with creating musical similarity and soundalikes.

The “doing similarity” perspective on commissioned musical labor has several advantages. It takes seriously that commissioned composition – and creativity in creative industries more generally – is creative labor, with an emphasis on “work.” It highlights several relational dimensions of commissioned work: power asymmetries between commissioners and composers; the necessity of blending different domains of aesthetic musical knowledge with knowledge of legal assessments of originality and plagiarism; and how artistic freedom can be, and obviously is, at stake in many parts of creative labor. Moreover, through a practice perspective on the production of similarity, we can also learn about the specific creativity introduced in imitation; the complicated work of approximating and distancing from uncertain aesthetic and legal boundaries; as well as the richness of variance that can emerge from imitation and that is devalued in an environment that emphasizes (often only alleged) originality.

The workshop in Vienna was dedicated to the analysis of music commissions from a historical point of view. It’s important to note the diversity of commissioning practices. Not only have music commissions been important throughout history, but their influence continues in the present. I’d like to conclude this blog post by pointing out interesting and important relationships between these strands in the study of music commissions. They show that there are often only small differences in the working environments of cultural producers but that they can have a significant impact on the kind of cultural product that emerges from a commission.

While we can learn from the past how certain relationships between composers and commissioners allowed for the creation of fabulous pieces of music, the contemporary perspective gives us insights into the daily work of an entire industry that may still be dominated by a few but has become the livelihood of an increasing number of creative individuals. From this perspective, it is important to bring a historical perspective on the relationship between commissioner and composer into dialog, since there is a tendency in both music history and contemporary creativity studies to focus research on the “creative margins” of fields of study. There are several intriguing comparative angles that could be explored further. One is the written “briefs” on which composers based their commissioned compositions. These written texts accompany a commission, and their wording is highly influential in the creative process. For my research, I analyze 250 so-called “sync-briefs,” what kind of adjectives and phrases they use, as well as how they introduce references to signal to composers the degree of similarity that a commissioner demands. In the workshop, several historical “briefs” or letters between commissioners and composers were presented. A comparative dataset of historical and contemporary commission texts could be very enlightening. Interestingly, several of the commissions discussed in the presentations were actually designed as competitions, with first, second, and third prizes. In my cases of producing musical similarity for synchronization, composers usually encounter pitch situations, where an (often undisclosed) number of composers enter the pitch for a music commission. Pitches are supposed to be a more contemporary working practice in the creative industries, but they are obviously relevant to historical music commissions as well.

If you are interested, I have written a book on musical similarity in the context of music commissions, which is available in German and open access: Liminal creativity. Practices of smallest transformations in the production of soundalikes” (Marburg: Büchner-Verlag, 2023). As I am currently working on English journal articles on this topic, you might consider to look for updates on my website: www.konstantinhondros.info

---

Information on the author: Konstantin Hondros (University of Duisburg-Essen)

is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Duisburg-Essen working in a DFG-funded project that investigates the influence of intellectual property rights and alternative regulation practices on creativity in the music and pharma industry. He is interested in accessing and handling knowledge in creative processes and how relations constrain and enable creativity. His dissertation focused on practices of intentionally creating musical similarity in commissioned work processes, both in music studio and platform environments. Contact: konstantin.hondros@uni-due.de

---

---

---