Interest in AI Music Declines in Young Listeners

Yesterday was helping a friend do a few things on his yard, I had my Zeno playing my library on phone which was sitting on a lawn chair, I didn't mentioned it was ai. After a while the song "Beale Street Blues" came on which prompted Edwin to comment "You know where Beale Street is at?", I replied "I forget, I think it's in Chicago", to which he corrected me and said "No, it's in Tennessee, that's where BB King started and Elvis even" and went on with some other story, and when he got done I told him that everything that's playing are songs from a century ago, and told him I created every song we had been listening too and that I've been working on it awhile. He then made a sour face and said "Oh, that's AI stuff then", but he had clearly definitely been enjoying it for over an hour of it prior to me telling him what he was listening to.

I use ai to create these things, Ai doesn't create it, Yeah I could do nothing without it, but it's still my extensive time and effort that brings this PD library into existence. To simply call if "AI Created Song"' is misleading. That's kind of like saying a novel is "typewriter created", or a painting is "brush and pigment created.

@richpowers Just my opinion, the best is the original recording and not artificially changing it to make it "fake" or not the original recording with artificially making "instruments". and changing it. It's like the oldies collections you get on cheap CDs that said original artists but not original recordings and even the original artists is not real....the original artists that made the record are not on the remake. It's a cover and anyone that knows the original as played on the radio when it was a hit knows it's fake and not the original song. Anyone that knows these songs you are doing will know it's an artificial remake. Artisan knows what I am referring to here as with Teenage Dreams shows I had to point out a few songs that were not the original recordings and he changed it or I couldn't air it. I don't really know what you are actually doing with AI but I think of that like I think of all the pop stuff radio plays that is all autotune, not a person's real voice, all electronically generated, not real drums, instruments, real musicians, all synthesized. It's one thing if a song is redone by another artist or "covered" but redoing an original with AI to artificially change it is another.
I can understand a way of cleaning up the original so better audio but not using artificial means to "redo" the original and not keep it authentic. I honestly don't know what is wrong with keeping it original but most of your listeners won't know or care as others, unlike me, don't care how a song or music is generated, whether "real" or not, or won't know the original to know the difference. Like the person you were helping.
Just expressing my opinion here and it's just that, an opinion, nothing can replace something created by a real person with real instruments, or kept as it was created. In that case, why not just use AI to make up your playlist of songs and then you also have no copyright problems?  But I am an "old" guy and I live in the past.

@mark Well Mark, it's just an imaginary musical theater of the air.. no, that's not it... "theatre of the mind" is what they call it. A radio presentation.

... Created by utilizing AI. ...and focusing exclusively on the 1920s and surrounding 

@mark, you mentioned my Teenage Dreams shows and playing not the original hit.

Sometimes that was unintentional.  A lot of times intentional.  Because you can't always go by the 'hit' that was the most popular.  Elvis made a lot of songs, certainly not the first versions recorded, very famous.  But by no means were they the originals.  They were covers; perhaps more popular overall than the true originals, but still covers nonetheless; he took advantage of the racial inequalities of the time.

As another example, Johnny Angel (1962) by Shelly Fabares was a cover; it was originally recorded by Laurie Loman in 1960.  I much prefer the true, original version (by Loman), as it's far less saccharine than that of Fabares (Loman was much older and more mature as a singer).

Let's step back a bit.  I mean, you're not dealing here with classical or a lot of jazz music, composed by musical geniuses.  Popular music in the 20th century and beyond for the most part is relatively simple, which is why AI can generate it.

If all you're looking for is to be entertained, then why not AI music?

I'm also interested in the history of the music I listen to (including the performers), so it's really not my thing.    I wouldn't listen to an AI radio station, for example.

But what @richpowers is doing is a hybrid; taking historical music and pairing it with new performances (guided by his tastes).  That's why I find it interesting.

@artisan-radio You know what I mean by remakes....not the covers. It's all over now by the Rolling Stones is one example. They covered it and the original was not really known.
Every song that the Dave Clark 5 made hits was a cover of an original Motown song from a few years ago. They were the cover specialists. That's not what I was referring to. We both  know what I mean by remakes. We talked about this. By original recordings I mean the original hit as it was recorded/played in it's time, which ever version it is...not a song from 1957 redone by the "original artists" and the song is not the original hit and sounds like it was recorded in the eighties, which it was. Fake oldies that were done in the eighties by companies that did the compilations for CDs by redoing the song and not taking the original hit recording. Not even the same singer as on the original and calling it the original artists. This is what I am talking about.
Not playing the "hit" version but the true original, lessor known version is different as you acknowledge the original artist/recording. You don't say this is Johnny Angel by Shelly Fabares when you are playing the Laurie Loman original. Or then say this is Shelly Fabares and not play the original but a remake redone 20 years later that is not the original recording as it was made in it's time. Yes I know a couple of the ones I caught with Teenage Dreams wasn't intentional and the remakes as we talked about got into the mainstream of things and only people that grew up with it would know it's a fake new recording by the "original artists".
Cover by another artist is not the same as a remake by fake original artist. You're No Good was first a hit for the Swingin' Blue Jeans. Linda Ronstadt did a cover. OK that's different then what I am talking about.

As for Rich redoing everything with AI and not just keeping the authentic song as recorded to "like it better" it was only my opinion that if you are going to do this but make it artificially into something else, to me why? It's not real. It's against my way of looking at it. You are making a synthetic reproduction and if you have to do that to make something you don't like into something you do it looses it authenticity. To me that matters, to Rich it doesn't. Just my opinion. 
"If all you're looking for is to be entertained, then why not AI music?"
Because it's artificial, not real. 

Well, if you cover a song, regardless of intent, it's a cover.

Some of those remake covers were pretty good; better than the hit version they were attempting to emulate.

Mark, let me put it this way, so maybe to demonstrate what I'm taking about. You had asked me earlier why don't I just use the original public domain recordings... Would you be content to spend an hour listening to the original historic vintage recordings of these songs - For example, this one is a good representation of many 1920s songs."Linger Awhile"

Or would you be happier listening to recreations of those exact same songs that sound more like this: Same exact song "Linger Awhile" redone:
https://suno.com/s/imF4mJapnm85H2QO

Myself, I don't care to even listen to the original, I don't like it, nor do I think most people would today, but that original version was a hit. But I prefer my version which use those original lyrics far superior, not only in quality, but in entertainment value.

Remember, my objective is royalty free content. I do like listening  to the library I'm building up. I understand your views completely, if this fabricated music is repulsive to you - I understand that too, and I'm not the least bit offended that you feel that way. But I enjoy listening to it, and I enjoy creating these renditions. I hope others will too when it's broadcast. 

It will be a unique, original, entertaining, and interesting part 15 AM broadcast once it hits the airways as far as I'm concerned. Surely there will be some who do enjoy it.. at least one person that I know of, and that's me.

@richpowers Ok I listened to the first original and your remake. First of all the second one is totally something else from the original with little resemblance to the first version.
You are right that I find the AI one you did as you termed "repulsive". I understand your position and you understand mine, good we are off to a good start! 
Why do I find it repulsive? You have made it into what sounds exactly like synthesized pop. Machine generated. What I hear in your remake is what I hear in a Justin Bieber record(an example) In fact your version could actually get played on radio today as it sounds(and is) like I said.....synthesized pop. While the original is not, as you said, what I'd want to listen to for a hour or more or all the time as on my station, it still was the era of the people that grew up in the time and were hits and as such should be kept in it's authentic state if that is what you want to do to keep it public domain. But I do understand your intent here to make it more entertaining.

But here's the thing. Put my opinion aside. What is important here is this. You admitted in you post that doing 19th century and early 20th century isn't really your cup of tea. You are being honest. You are just doing this because of public domain. Remember when I asked you if you really like what you are doing as you have to be the main listener? Would it be better to create a 300 song playlist with AI of new generated songs just by saying to AI....I need a playlist of 300 songs for a radio station and getting AI to generate a new playlist for you and specify what you want, genera, and it would be "originals" at least and still be public domain as there is no writer/performer or registered copyright holder. What do I think, It doesn't matter,  And if you did that, would you like it? Would you want to listen to it all the time on your station? Same question. It doesn't matter what I think and I am not telling you what to do. All I know is I think you would rather be doing what you really want and not trying to make something you don't like into something else you can live with.
But I admit you will get listeners and Gen Z listeners as it sounds just like what they listen to today. At least the sample you gave me here.

My final thought(opinion only).....pay the 300 dollars to BMI, Play what you want and like. If they want a log for a few days a year, so give them a log. Salamandra, Zara, Play it Live etc all keep logs and BMI knows that we part 15ers are not pros, we are hobbyists and we don't keep logs in a professional way and it would be as Salamandra would keep the log, song and artist and time it played, in a big folder in your computer. If they ask you for a log set it up to keep the log in your computer for the dates they want. You tell them that this is the best I can do and I think they know of the automated programs and the ones you are using and it's random with automation. How do you get a huge file of hundreds and hundreds of songs to them? Let them tell you how...again you are not a professional station. Unlike Canada they know what part15 is.
You still are in control of your own station. IF I was in the United States I would pay the modest yearly fee and do what I am doing now. The only reason I don't do it here is I can't get them to take my money, or know what I should even pay. I am not on their radar.
Why am I saying this....because you are doing all this just because of public domain and trying to make something else more likeable when you could be doing what you like and want to.

But there has to be more public domain stuff that you like better and can keep the originality. What about the blues people? The Mississippi delta stuff? Elmore James, Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson. I don't know just asking? Early Swing era songs? What about early bluegrass and country? First generation Carter family in the 20s did some good stuff. I don't know just asking.

Posted by: @mark

↑

@richpowers Ok I listened to the first original and your remake. First of all the second one is totally something else from the original with little resemblance to the first version.

That's exactly the point! In fact the DJ intro and outros to the songs I had fumbled together repeatedly emphasize that only the lyrics are used but most of them won't resemble the original music composition at all, it bet that's repeated 40 times or more throughout the playlist.

... , it still was the era of the people that grew up in the time and were hits and as such should be kept in it's authentic state if that is what you want to do to keep it public domain. But I do understand your intent here to make it more entertaining.

Not sure what you mean by it should be kept authentic to keep it in the public domain. What I want is a royalty free broadcast, avoid any form of recurring fees imposed on the station, and broadcast something that sounds modern, entertaining, and even an historic gallop through the stories of the what, how, when and why the particular songs had been written in the first place. I think it's entertaining, it isn't authentic nor implies it is.

are being honest. You are just doing this because of public domain. Remember when I asked you if you really like what you are doing as you have to be the main listener? Would it be better to create a 300 song playlist with AI of new generated songs just by saying to AI....I need a playlist of 300 songs for a radio station and getting AI to generate a new playlist for you .... ..

You kind of lost me after that, but I can answer the first, "Remember when I asked you if you really like what you are doing as you have to be the main listener?" Yes, I remember. I also remember answering to the affirmative; yes I like it. I keep saying so.
As for "just by saying to AI....I need a playlist of 300 songs for a radio station and getting AI to generate a new playlist for you .... .." Well, that's total nonsense, how many times have I said I generally spend a minimum of 3 hours on one song? And it's not rare that it be 5 or 6 hours creating just one single song, and usually trying to complete at least one or two new songs a day (though I often skip days at a time without a new one) - point is you can't just tell AI to do anything and expect it to do it. I worked on these songs, me, utilizing the power of AI. Ai didn't do anything for me.

,  And if you did that, would you like it? Would you want to listen to it all the time on your station? Same question. It doesn't matter what I think and I am not telling you what to do. All I know is I think you would rather be doing what you really want and not trying to make something you don't like into something else you can live with.

Uhhhh.. yep, as said numerous times how much I enjoy listening to these creations, especially now that it's getter bigger and more diversities of genres and subject matter, and history provided.. yes.

My final thought(opinion only).....pay the 300 dollars to BMI, Play what you want and like. If they want a log for a few days a year, so ... [and, and, and...] You still are in control of your own station..... ... ..
Why am I saying this....because you are doing all this just because of public domain and trying to make something else more likeable when you could be doing what you like and want to.

I am doing what I like and want to do, completely free from any outside imposement. It ain't the $300 a year, It's that I don't want to have to answer to anybody. I don't want to pay them to have oversight on what my station broadcast. And like you say, this is just a hobby, I don't want my hobby to be infringed on in anyway, and I'm certainly not going to pay some organization to put me under a controlling position.

But there has to be more public domain stuff that you like better and can keep the originality. What about the blues people? The Mississippi delta stuff? Elmore James, Howlin' Wolf, Robert Johnson. I don't know just asking? Early Swing era songs? What about early bluegrass and country? First generation Carter family in the 20s did some good stuff. I don't know just asking.

Yeah Mark, there's plenty I like, but not plentiful enough to keep a broadcast going, and it's got to be before 1930, and when it comes to originals.. I like to listen to a few numbers.. maybe an hour, but then that's the enough for me for a few months till the mood sets in again. I just can't get into playing original pre-1930 songs all the time - that idea is a no go for me, I prefer the modern day cookie cutter stuff over the 1920s original renditions.

Ah, it's differences that make the world go round.

I personally prefer the original 1920s (and earlier) sound recordings.  Sound quality warts and all.

It's the music that's key.  These recordings are just poor (in some cases very poor) slices of what the music must have sounded like back then.  I can use my imagination to recreate the original atmosphere.

Yesterday, I attended a jazz concert focusing on The Roaring Twenties.  The band, Barnstormer, heading by a talented local singer, Melanie Dekker, gave pretty faithful renditions of these songs, and it was a lot of fun.

To each their own.

@artisan-radio I was just trying to make a counter-point; The argument being put forth is that what I am doing is bastardizing the classics, or being disrespectful of the original songs, dishonoring them and producing repulsive programming just so I don't have to pay $300 a year for music royalties that would permit me to legally broadcast the original copyrighted material that AI has trained on so its possible to emulate or fabricate an equivalent representation of modern music.

My primary objective has always been that my part 15 programming be 100% free - free as in free - no sticky fingers from the outside imposing consistent repeating fees or any other form of managing control upon what my little hyper-local hobby station is playing. The only way to accomplish that is to either use royalty free material or create something yourself.

For years I aired only talking programming, because there is a massive variety of royalty-free talk programming always available that part 15 stations are welcome to utilize, I had even categorized and confirmed a large list of them on part15lab.blogger.com to source from.

Now, since AI has come in to the picture, a whole new door has been opened - a whole new world of royalty-free (despite the fact that AI stole it), content can be created, and since music is generally the primary purpose and substance of radio (in the perspective of any potential listening audience), I'm taking advantage of AI and using it for song creations - or rather re-creations and re-imagining of century old classics.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I feel like I'm being creative and original - though I'm only rehashing vintage songs by utilizing an ai toolbox. 

I agree with you.  I don't agree with letting AI loose to do whatever 'it' wants to do.  Those AI radio stations are an abomination.  But what you're doing is using it as a tool, much like a musical instrument, and guiding it to produce the results that you want.

I personally don't like much modern music, per say, but find what you're doing interesting and unique.  And that's what Part 15 radio should be about.

One of the reasons I program my public radio station with all public domain material (with many of the songs that you use and their original recordings) is that I also don't want to be beholden to the music licensing gods.  There's a reason for the public domain - to ensure that history isn't lost due to greed - and I personally like both the history and the music.  I also enjoy saying 'screw you' to the greed in my own way.

Enjoyment is the key.

@artisan-radio What I meant is that I didn't mean it as to suggest the original 1920 recordings make a poor programming choice - that's not what I meant nor my opinionated view. I was over exaggerating as a means of trying to drive my point across that I personally don't want my station to be 1920s original recordings 24/7,  I want a more modern sound, thus decided to take advantage of AI to accomplish that freely and legally