Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

fadingmaize.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#51

Post by vova_hn2 »

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.

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#54

Post by [deleted] »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #42
AnthonyR wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#55

Post by CSaponara »

vova_hn2 wrote: post #51

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 t…

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!

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#57

Post by waffletower »

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.

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#58

Post by 999900000999 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #47
erikschoster wrote: post #21

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…

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 f…

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.

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#59

Post by jacobgraf »

waffletower wrote: post #57

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…

This comment is probably the closest one to my own thoughts and beliefs as well. Thanks for writing it so eloquently.

Re: Show HN: Reviving my 2001 college band with AI

#60

Post by keeda »

erikschoster wrote: post #21

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…

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.

Post reply on HN