The original recordings sound much better and more interesting to me. Way better. The AI generated versions sound slicker in some sense but... like the re-recorded versions of old hit songs from the 60s you hear at the grocery store sometimes. Technically the song is still there, but it blends in with the rest of the muzak.
I'm sorry to be so negative, it's great you're returning to the material after all these years, but the AI versions I've listened to all have the same smoothed-over quality that loses everything interesting and relatable to my ears in the original versions.
I'm glad to hear people share this sentiment. I think the human quality will be part of what people will start to enjoy more about music now that AI has improved so much in terms of it's ability to produce highly polished songs.
This is my hope as well but I'm doubtful. I'd expect it's more likely that the generations growing up with this stuff will enjoy being able to annoy their elders with it and fully embrace the human-less aesthetic.
I think I can put the finger on how it differs and why the AI version seems more "generic." I think the difference is in the "post production" that became more common in pop music in the 2010's. I'm not at all a musician so I don't know the right terms for it, but the AI version has a bunch more of little "flairs" and auto-tuning and audio tweaks which I assume is put in during post-production that makes it sound "slick."
However, it seems to me that all pop music uses the same post-production tricks these days, and so it all sounds somewhat formulaic even if the individual songs themselves are very different. As such the original version may sound more interesting simply by being different.
So the 2001 version sounds more like an "MTV Unplugged" performance whereas the AI version sounds more like the professional and polished version that gets released commercially.
Each has their allure, however. I suspect the AI version will do better with younger crowds.
I get it. Recorded music is a lot of fun to play and listen to. This still was a fun project for us to work on together after 25-years and with both of us living on opposite ends of the country. Hopefully our next release will be an in-person recording!
I gotta brag on Chuck a bit more though. I do love the depth to his lyrics and the way he puts them to melodies. I think his stuff, at the core, is excellent. Can't wait to work on some new stuff!
My girlfriend has been using an AI music generator and like, her music is the best generative music I've listened to. Her prompts are crazy, lots of actual like, music theory and specific requests.
That said, it still shares these qualities. It sounds like AI images look. Oversmoothed/overtuned.
Like as a creative myself, what AI has taught me more than anything is that a lot of what we call artistry happens in the friction between an artist and their tools, when they're pushing to the limit of what they know how to and what their tools are able to do, that's where the great shit is. And it's not even that AI is a bad tool necessarily, it just doesn't create any friction. It can be frustrating, for sure, when you just can't get it to do what you want, but it's not an interesting frustration like friction because you aren't the problem, nor your skill: the tool is the problem.
That probably sounds like I'm saying it's bad and again, no. I'm saying the friction between the artist and their tools is the interesting part, and because there's very little friction, meaningfully, between artists and AI tools, it just comes out... boring.
The push for generative AI is "you can make anything," and that's true. But if you can make anything, then by necessity, anything you make is unimpressive. It's only really impressive if you're not sure if you can make it.
The charm is that as humans it's physically impossible to do the same thing exactly the say way twice.
If I play 3 notes, without something like quantization it's always going to be a bit different from you playing the same 3.
Anything AI with vocals sounds completely non sensical. I guess you can feed it words, but at that point just record yourself. I'm not all that good , but that's the point.
Like your thoughts! And then mastery is being able to play things exactly the same. But with mastery comes another way for humans to recognize each other. Specific sounds to specific masters (or movements, techniques for say sports). Each master adds individual grace that we can recognize. That might be why we discount AI-creations vs human mastery. There is a grace (I’m stretching) but it is not unique and not acquired via a process of human mastery. (The word ‘bland’ fits very well!)
I bought this Barenboim on Beethoven DVD set 20 yrs ago only for the bonus DVD where he gives a masterclass. These were exceptional students (Lang Lang is rated as one of the worlds best now), and I can’t play piano, but in that video he shows me as a layman the difference between playing with competence and playing with grace. One can hear the difference in depth of the story behind each note. Found one: [1]
As a first reaction, I loved the idea, since I have had a handful of bands in my life and really loved how you revived (or aimed to revive) the old days with modern tools. I really liked the web design and nostalgia of the old photos combined with the possibilities of new technology.
Then I hit play.
AI sucked the soul out of your music. I am happy for you if you liked the results. But for me, each of the comparisons proved me right to loathe AI music.
Interesting idea, and it sounds like you like the results, so kudos.
My musical taste tends toward less produced, rougher/lo-fi recordings, e.g. Guided By Voices. So, it follows that I prefer the original recordings.
There is one aspect that I find slightly dehumanizing -- the AI changed the singer's voice so drastically that I don't recognize the original singer anymore. The uniqueness of the voice has been smoothed out to be much more generic. For me, music (and art in general) is in part an expression of one's identity, so I'd consider this a negative outcome. I'm sure similar things could be said of the instrument performances as well.
But again, this is all just my two cents, and it's a matter of taste. Ultimately if you're happy with the results, that's what matters!
Completely agree. We tried feeding his voice in and using that as a voice model and it actually sounded even further away from his actual voice so we nixed it. We uploaded our original tracks as a reference, so there were some notes that left me feeling like "that sounds like Chuck", but for the most part, yeah, it's pretty far off.
Nice - I've done similar things with some of my music [1].
I have a classical piece I wrote over a decade ago for piano [2] (it’s the instrument I play), but it was always intended to be an orchestral work. Using AI allowed me to sonically experiment with a stringed score which was pretty cool.
It’s basically the equivalent of taking a piece you’ve written and running it through an arranger keyboard or Band-in-a-Box on steroids.
That's great. AI is a tricky beast. It can be used for good or evil. I had a lot of convictions while working on this project and my soul is resting easy with how we navigated things!
The revived (AI) versions have this...thin and hollow sound to it. It is difficult to explain, most AI-generated songs have this when they're modelling acoustic drums, stringed instruments, etc.
FWIW, I'm (now a hobby) musician and have done studio work. Even the latest and best models have this unmistakable sound.
Totally agree. I guess that's what comes with the AI/robot stuff. Hopefully we'll be able to create an in-person album again, but with a little higher production quality than our dorm room versions.
I think you nailed it here. The originality happened 25 years ago. That was fun! Then 25 years passed, life went on, and this project gave two old friends a reason to reconnect and see what the technology could do with our old songs. That was fun too!
it's pretty easy to make words that fast once you have the words written, fwiw. mostly breath control and there are things you think you could never do and you'll be doing it after a few times practicing. now writing the lyrics is a bit harder. twista is great
I've read the "how revival works" section, but still have no idea "how the revival works".
("We've used ai" is all I got from both this intro on HN and the we pages I read, though possible I missed some section.)
Can you share?
I.e. Did you take original audio recordings and run it though some audio chain that optimizes the mix and volumes? Did you put the sheets and lyrics into ableton and recreate the music? Did you feed audio files into chatgpt and prompt "make it better"? Something else?
In the interest of transparency, understanding what happened here will significantly guide my own emotional response :). I appreciate the details of 5 core principles, but spending so much time on principles without actual detail on what got done makes me skeptical and even cynical, which may not be the intent. For example, I personally distinguish between a raw photo, edited photo, composite image, and AI regenerated image, and one of the things I'm trying to understand is the path / traceability from human to final audio file.
The web stuff is well done. Now, with this newly created momentum, you should re-record the songs now, without AI. Hell, you could probably afford an awesome studio and equipment too. You could easily blow the AI out of the water.
I'd love that. We hope to. We live on opposite sides of the country now. The AI stuff was a great, nostalgic kick-off for us. We don't plan on using AI like this as our only way of making music, but it was a great project to work on. We'd love to write some new stuff and play live again. Hopefully soon!
This is awesome, though I have to agree with some other commenters. I like the originals more. Don't really know why, but they just sound more "refreshing" and "original".
I think this is a super intriguing project! I’ve been experimenting with some similar work on my old unfinished songs from eons past. It’s been really fulfilling to take that old work and see the original vision spring to life through modern tools.
I think that is one of our biggest takeaways with this. The goal was never to make AI music just to get tons of streams. We were curious! And now we get to share these reimagined versions with friends and family and rekindle some great memories from back in the day.
Exactly. Even if just for Chuck and I, this was something both of us needed. It brought a lot of positivity to each of our lives for a lot of different reasons.
Have you considered processing the original recordings using AI? I've witnessed some truly amazing results. I've had twenty year old Skype call recordings sound like we were sitting in a recording studio.
Yes, that's exactly what we did here. We fed the originals to AI, but we did give it wiggle room to make a cover version and not follow the original exactly. I think I will play around with running a few tracks through and telling it to follow as close as possible to the original and see how it sounds!
This is great! I disagree with some of the commenters here that the originals sound better.
The originals sound very much like demos, and from a producer's perspective are very low quality (no offense). They're definitely more raw, but objectively not as good - i.e harmonies aren't tight, the levels are not well balanced, etc.
It's funny that people hate that AI can improve this, because even without AI, modern music uses a ton of digital tools to mix and master - and true musicians don't care whether it's digital or not.
These commenters would be the same people who boo-ed bob dylan when he went electric.
Look at John Mayer - he uses AI to model amps, instead of lugging around giant heavy tube amps.
Question for you - what was the workflow exactly? I've been wanting to test out some AI tools to do similar things with my music.
I agree. I think there are a lot of haters here. The remaster sounds much more professional/complete. I guess I could see that some people may have preference for a sorta live show feel but I've always preferred the album versions. Maybe I had too many friends that made me listen to their bad demo albums when I was young and I'm traumatized ha.
I'm sorry to say, but in the both examples on the page I liked the original version more.
In the first example guitars sound very lively, like I'm actually listening to someone playing live. Very warm and cosy feeling. 2026 version is just some standard over-produced pop-music, that I would have completely ignored if I heard it "in the wild".
In the second example, 2003 vocal performance might be not perfect from a technique perspective, but I can hear real emotion in his voice. 2026 version sounds very bland, just like every other song that I might here on a pop-radio.
I want to say that I am not an anti-AI fanatic, I am generally curious about new ways to use technology (including gen-AI, but not limited to it) to create art. So I am not coming from "it's AI, therefore it's bad" perspective. I genuinely tried to listen with open mind and hear the music without thinking too much about how exactly it was created.
I appreciate that perspective! A next step might be to record the songs again, stripped down to their original elements (acoustic guitar , for example), but with modern recording and producing equipment. That would be a fun 2003 dorm room—>2026 AI assisted—>2026 authentic comparison!
If you want to know the truth, the AI versions are not good. Every decibel of authenticity has been processed out of it; sacrificed in the quest for CHR style production. The mismatch is almost discordant.
A and B examples are convincingly "human". It is complete nonsense to say otherwise. The AI versions are simply giving the music a kind of commercial streamline production treatment; treatment that many listeners need to accept the music as viable. Some will fight brutally to hide this need here. No offense, but both a and b are thoroughly cliché. The AI is not sucking away some grand uniqueness of expression here. I have heard both raw and produced countless times. Humans are generative AIs already -- fighting machines that do it is ironic and dishonest. Sure the AI process may be robbing some of the "honesty" of the performance. But you guys aren't unique like Daniel Johnston when you are unfiltered so I don't see a problem with either version. The studio is a place of magic and sonic makeup. If you want to wear makeup, go for it.
Saw a post on X that showed that AI images and videos have uniform entropy across the entire image, making them easy to detect. I've been unable to "unsee" this across all AI generated things, not just images and videos: It shows up in audio and AI voice (which is why AI has such a weird "compressed" speaking cadence), writing (AI is bad at writing "slow" sections in books, it's non-stop things happening at exactly the same intervals), and I'm sure it applies to coding also somehow.
In the AI version, which I think is inferior to the original human version here, the AI has "filled in all the gaps" and it feels like an endless plateau with no end (AI is also bad at wrapping up songs, lol)
We're about the same age, I was even in a band at a small liberal arts college in the great lakes area in 2003. AI can't bring it back, and the stuff the music AI has created here sounds terrible to me.
We're particularly trying to avoid comments that respond to other people's work with snark, putdowns, and/or dismissiveness. You don't have to like or appreciate every post, but poisoning the commons is not an ok way to handle that.
(By "you" of course I don't just mean you personally, but everyone here.)
I thought this was exaggerating but what happened to making art for arts sake. Nearly every time I hear or see AI art its extremely painful to me (with very few exceptions). I suppose it will get to the point of plastic surgery where the well crafted AI art will start to be difficult to discern from real art and at that point, maybe humanity should hang up the towel.
All that is to say, I like the originals so much more and would never in all eternity listen to the AI crafted stuff for listening enjoyment. I want to forget the AI versions like I had never heard them.
Yeah, I thought maybe everyone was being negative but wow. It’s _sad_ to think of music moving towards this “revival” style. More a wake than a revival. The death of human music.
The original recordings sound much better and more interesting to me. Way better. The AI generated versions sound slicker in some sense but... like the re-recorded versions of old hit songs from the 60s you hear at the grocery store sometimes. Technically the song is still there, but it blends in with the rest of the muzak.
I'm sorry to be so negative, it's great you're returning to the material after all these years, but the AI versions I've listened to all have the same smoothed-over quality that loses everything interesting and relatable to my ears in the original versions.
I'm glad to hear people share this sentiment. I think the human quality will be part of what people will start to enjoy more about music now that AI has improved so much in terms of it's ability to produce highly polished songs.
This is my hope as well but I'm doubtful. I'd expect it's more likely that the generations growing up with this stuff will enjoy being able to annoy their elders with it and fully embrace the human-less aesthetic.
I think I can put the finger on how it differs and why the AI version seems more "generic." I think the difference is in the "post production" that became more common in pop music in the 2010's. I'm not at all a musician so I don't know the right terms for it, but the AI version has a bunch more of little "flairs" and auto-tuning and audio tweaks which I assume is put in during post-production that makes it sound "slick."
However, it seems to me that all pop music uses the same post-production tricks these days, and so it all sounds somewhat formulaic even if the individual songs themselves are very different. As such the original version may sound more interesting simply by being different.
So the 2001 version sounds more like an "MTV Unplugged" performance whereas the AI version sounds more like the professional and polished version that gets released commercially.
Each has their allure, however. I suspect the AI version will do better with younger crowds.
I get it. Recorded music is a lot of fun to play and listen to. This still was a fun project for us to work on together after 25-years and with both of us living on opposite ends of the country. Hopefully our next release will be an in-person recording!
I gotta brag on Chuck a bit more though. I do love the depth to his lyrics and the way he puts them to melodies. I think his stuff, at the core, is excellent. Can't wait to work on some new stuff!
My girlfriend has been using an AI music generator and like, her music is the best generative music I've listened to. Her prompts are crazy, lots of actual like, music theory and specific requests.
That said, it still shares these qualities. It sounds like AI images look. Oversmoothed/overtuned.
Like as a creative myself, what AI has taught me more than anything is that a lot of what we call artistry happens in the friction between an artist and their tools, when they're pushing to the limit of what they know how to and what their tools are able to do, that's where the great shit is. And it's not even that AI is a bad tool necessarily, it just doesn't create any friction. It can be frustrating, for sure, when you just can't get it to do what you want, but it's not an interesting frustration like friction because you aren't the problem, nor your skill: the tool is the problem.
That probably sounds like I'm saying it's bad and again, no. I'm saying the friction between the artist and their tools is the interesting part, and because there's very little friction, meaningfully, between artists and AI tools, it just comes out... boring.
The push for generative AI is "you can make anything," and that's true. But if you can make anything, then by necessity, anything you make is unimpressive. It's only really impressive if you're not sure if you can make it.
The charm is that as humans it's physically impossible to do the same thing exactly the say way twice.
If I play 3 notes, without something like quantization it's always going to be a bit different from you playing the same 3.
Anything AI with vocals sounds completely non sensical. I guess you can feed it words, but at that point just record yourself. I'm not all that good , but that's the point.
Like your thoughts! And then mastery is being able to play things exactly the same. But with mastery comes another way for humans to recognize each other. Specific sounds to specific masters (or movements, techniques for say sports). Each master adds individual grace that we can recognize. That might be why we discount AI-creations vs human mastery. There is a grace (I’m stretching) but it is not unique and not acquired via a process of human mastery. (The word ‘bland’ fits very well!)
I bought this Barenboim on Beethoven DVD set 20 yrs ago only for the bonus DVD where he gives a masterclass. These were exceptional students (Lang Lang is rated as one of the worlds best now), and I can’t play piano, but in that video he shows me as a layman the difference between playing with competence and playing with grace. One can hear the difference in depth of the story behind each note. Found one: [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYfrht6TU8
As a first reaction, I loved the idea, since I have had a handful of bands in my life and really loved how you revived (or aimed to revive) the old days with modern tools. I really liked the web design and nostalgia of the old photos combined with the possibilities of new technology. Then I hit play. AI sucked the soul out of your music. I am happy for you if you liked the results. But for me, each of the comparisons proved me right to loathe AI music.
We appreciate you listening anyway! I enjoy the music, but it's definitely not for everybody!
Interesting idea, and it sounds like you like the results, so kudos.
My musical taste tends toward less produced, rougher/lo-fi recordings, e.g. Guided By Voices. So, it follows that I prefer the original recordings.
There is one aspect that I find slightly dehumanizing -- the AI changed the singer's voice so drastically that I don't recognize the original singer anymore. The uniqueness of the voice has been smoothed out to be much more generic. For me, music (and art in general) is in part an expression of one's identity, so I'd consider this a negative outcome. I'm sure similar things could be said of the instrument performances as well.
But again, this is all just my two cents, and it's a matter of taste. Ultimately if you're happy with the results, that's what matters!
Completely agree. We tried feeding his voice in and using that as a voice model and it actually sounded even further away from his actual voice so we nixed it. We uploaded our original tracks as a reference, so there were some notes that left me feeling like "that sounds like Chuck", but for the most part, yeah, it's pretty far off.
Nice - I've done similar things with some of my music [1].
I have a classical piece I wrote over a decade ago for piano [2] (it’s the instrument I play), but it was always intended to be an orchestral work. Using AI allowed me to sonically experiment with a stringed score which was pretty cool.
It’s basically the equivalent of taking a piece you’ve written and running it through an arranger keyboard or Band-in-a-Box on steroids.
[1] - https://mordenstar.com/blog/dutyfree-shop
[2] - https://mordenstar.com/blog/screwdriver-sonata
That's great. AI is a tricky beast. It can be used for good or evil. I had a lot of convictions while working on this project and my soul is resting easy with how we navigated things!
The revived (AI) versions have this...thin and hollow sound to it. It is difficult to explain, most AI-generated songs have this when they're modelling acoustic drums, stringed instruments, etc.
FWIW, I'm (now a hobby) musician and have done studio work. Even the latest and best models have this unmistakable sound.
Agreed. As someone who had never dove much into AI, it was a great learning process to experience first hand its limitations and tendencies.
Totally agree. I guess that's what comes with the AI/robot stuff. Hopefully we'll be able to create an in-person album again, but with a little higher production quality than our dorm room versions.
I’m not really a fan here.
I want to be able to rap like Twista. If I use AI to change my voice and speed it up, it’s kinda fake.
Where’s the originality in that. I’ll never be *that good*, but I have fun doing it.
Now I guess using AI strictly for mastering is OK , but even then the results haven’t been good for me.
“But I have fun doing it.”
I think you nailed it here. The originality happened 25 years ago. That was fun! Then 25 years passed, life went on, and this project gave two old friends a reason to reconnect and see what the technology could do with our old songs. That was fun too!
Hey, I gotta say that reading your actual original words feels much more interesting than whatever is that artificial slop on your website!
Yeah, I built the website, but with a day job and 4 kids and about 64 other things going on, I did heavily lean into AI for the copy. :-)
[dead]
it's pretty easy to make words that fast once you have the words written, fwiw. mostly breath control and there are things you think you could never do and you'll be doing it after a few times practicing. now writing the lyrics is a bit harder. twista is great
Hi! Thx for sharing :).
I've read the "how revival works" section, but still have no idea "how the revival works".
("We've used ai" is all I got from both this intro on HN and the we pages I read, though possible I missed some section.)
Can you share?
I.e. Did you take original audio recordings and run it though some audio chain that optimizes the mix and volumes? Did you put the sheets and lyrics into ableton and recreate the music? Did you feed audio files into chatgpt and prompt "make it better"? Something else?
In the interest of transparency, understanding what happened here will significantly guide my own emotional response :). I appreciate the details of 5 core principles, but spending so much time on principles without actual detail on what got done makes me skeptical and even cynical, which may not be the intent. For example, I personally distinguish between a raw photo, edited photo, composite image, and AI regenerated image, and one of the things I'm trying to understand is the path / traceability from human to final audio file.
Thx!
That video from 2004 is so refreshing. It’s just two people talking without asking me to “please subscribe” every 30-seconds.
Link in bio
lmfao
The web stuff is well done. Now, with this newly created momentum, you should re-record the songs now, without AI. Hell, you could probably afford an awesome studio and equipment too. You could easily blow the AI out of the water.
I'd love that. We hope to. We live on opposite sides of the country now. The AI stuff was a great, nostalgic kick-off for us. We don't plan on using AI like this as our only way of making music, but it was a great project to work on. We'd love to write some new stuff and play live again. Hopefully soon!
This is awesome, though I have to agree with some other commenters. I like the originals more. Don't really know why, but they just sound more "refreshing" and "original".
I think this is a super intriguing project! I’ve been experimenting with some similar work on my old unfinished songs from eons past. It’s been really fulfilling to take that old work and see the original vision spring to life through modern tools.
I think that is one of our biggest takeaways with this. The goal was never to make AI music just to get tons of streams. We were curious! And now we get to share these reimagined versions with friends and family and rekindle some great memories from back in the day.
Exactly. Even if just for Chuck and I, this was something both of us needed. It brought a lot of positivity to each of our lives for a lot of different reasons.
Good idea! Both versions sound great, in their own way.
I might have to revisit some of my old songs...
Appreciate it!
Have you considered processing the original recordings using AI? I've witnessed some truly amazing results. I've had twenty year old Skype call recordings sound like we were sitting in a recording studio.
Yes, that's exactly what we did here. We fed the originals to AI, but we did give it wiggle room to make a cover version and not follow the original exactly. I think I will play around with running a few tracks through and telling it to follow as close as possible to the original and see how it sounds!
how do you do that? I'd love for it to be not-as-generative with music.
This is great! I disagree with some of the commenters here that the originals sound better.
The originals sound very much like demos, and from a producer's perspective are very low quality (no offense). They're definitely more raw, but objectively not as good - i.e harmonies aren't tight, the levels are not well balanced, etc.
It's funny that people hate that AI can improve this, because even without AI, modern music uses a ton of digital tools to mix and master - and true musicians don't care whether it's digital or not.
These commenters would be the same people who boo-ed bob dylan when he went electric.
Look at John Mayer - he uses AI to model amps, instead of lugging around giant heavy tube amps.
Question for you - what was the workflow exactly? I've been wanting to test out some AI tools to do similar things with my music.
I agree. I think there are a lot of haters here. The remaster sounds much more professional/complete. I guess I could see that some people may have preference for a sorta live show feel but I've always preferred the album versions. Maybe I had too many friends that made me listen to their bad demo albums when I was young and I'm traumatized ha.
I'm sorry to say, but in the both examples on the page I liked the original version more.
In the first example guitars sound very lively, like I'm actually listening to someone playing live. Very warm and cosy feeling. 2026 version is just some standard over-produced pop-music, that I would have completely ignored if I heard it "in the wild".
In the second example, 2003 vocal performance might be not perfect from a technique perspective, but I can hear real emotion in his voice. 2026 version sounds very bland, just like every other song that I might here on a pop-radio.
I want to say that I am not an anti-AI fanatic, I am generally curious about new ways to use technology (including gen-AI, but not limited to it) to create art. So I am not coming from "it's AI, therefore it's bad" perspective. I genuinely tried to listen with open mind and hear the music without thinking too much about how exactly it was created.
I appreciate that perspective! A next step might be to record the songs again, stripped down to their original elements (acoustic guitar , for example), but with modern recording and producing equipment. That would be a fun 2003 dorm room—>2026 AI assisted—>2026 authentic comparison!
The originals are way better. The AI songs I can tell have a ghost in the shell. It’s like whatever uniqueness of the original was polished out.
The other way around, surely? The ‘ghost’ being the soul, absent in purely robotic beings.
Yes, it’s hard to accept that for many, the notion of quality is conflated with uniformity of texture.
It’s a fun website nevertheless, interesting project.
It is sad that the only way to catch attention these days is to add AI to the mix... You had a good time back then!
Interesting concept. I've been playing with using agents to modernize finish the ~200 projects I started. Next will be the idea pile...
If you want to know the truth, the AI versions are not good. Every decibel of authenticity has been processed out of it; sacrificed in the quest for CHR style production. The mismatch is almost discordant.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
A and B examples are convincingly "human". It is complete nonsense to say otherwise. The AI versions are simply giving the music a kind of commercial streamline production treatment; treatment that many listeners need to accept the music as viable. Some will fight brutally to hide this need here. No offense, but both a and b are thoroughly cliché. The AI is not sucking away some grand uniqueness of expression here. I have heard both raw and produced countless times. Humans are generative AIs already -- fighting machines that do it is ironic and dishonest. Sure the AI process may be robbing some of the "honesty" of the performance. But you guys aren't unique like Daniel Johnston when you are unfiltered so I don't see a problem with either version. The studio is a place of magic and sonic makeup. If you want to wear makeup, go for it.
This comment is probably the closest one to my own thoughts and beliefs as well. Thanks for writing it so eloquently.
Saw a post on X that showed that AI images and videos have uniform entropy across the entire image, making them easy to detect. I've been unable to "unsee" this across all AI generated things, not just images and videos: It shows up in audio and AI voice (which is why AI has such a weird "compressed" speaking cadence), writing (AI is bad at writing "slow" sections in books, it's non-stop things happening at exactly the same intervals), and I'm sure it applies to coding also somehow.
In the AI version, which I think is inferior to the original human version here, the AI has "filled in all the gaps" and it feels like an endless plateau with no end (AI is also bad at wrapping up songs, lol)
We're about the same age, I was even in a band at a small liberal arts college in the great lakes area in 2003. AI can't bring it back, and the stuff the music AI has created here sounds terrible to me.
Thanks for listening anyway. Personally, I like the stuff and love jamming out to it in my car, but hey, I may have a bit of nostalgia-bias.
"Hello, I have no soul, nice to meet you!"
I'll also use AI to revive your 2001 college band, no you needed!
[dead]
[flagged]
Whoa - you can't attack other users like that here, regardless of how strongly you feel about a topic like AI.
It's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and especially against the Show HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html). If you'd please review those and not post like this again, we'd appreciate it.
If you'd like to make your substantive points thoughtfully, that's fine.
[flagged]
Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and especially https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html and stick to the rules? You broke them with this.
We're particularly trying to avoid comments that respond to other people's work with snark, putdowns, and/or dismissiveness. You don't have to like or appreciate every post, but poisoning the commons is not an ok way to handle that.
(By "you" of course I don't just mean you personally, but everyone here.)
I thought this was exaggerating but what happened to making art for arts sake. Nearly every time I hear or see AI art its extremely painful to me (with very few exceptions). I suppose it will get to the point of plastic surgery where the well crafted AI art will start to be difficult to discern from real art and at that point, maybe humanity should hang up the towel.
All that is to say, I like the originals so much more and would never in all eternity listen to the AI crafted stuff for listening enjoyment. I want to forget the AI versions like I had never heard them.
Yeah, I thought maybe everyone was being negative but wow. It’s _sad_ to think of music moving towards this “revival” style. More a wake than a revival. The death of human music.
Sad and awful.