For music, I'd say ithat a simple `verbatim copying' license would be enough.
Verbatim only? That fails to grant freedom to modify and redistribute. Do you think such a license should be called "free"?
Because music is not a functional work, and you don't need the right to `modify' it, you can have it, but it is not a nessecary right. Where as with software, it is.
And labeling everything with `free', when one speaks of the freedoms that govern free software, will only cloud the discussion, so please don't say `free' when you really mean `free software'.
The is the same problem that Debian faces, labeling everything as `free software', and then excluding everything that doesn't fall into that category (like free doucmnetation, free music, etc).
Why should music users get less freedom over a work than users of GPL programs?
Music and software are different, comparing the blindly will only lead to problems.
Cheers.