alt Hacker NewsThe 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.
Replies
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.
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.
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.