It reads like AI was just collaborator. Author did the fun part, AI did the tedious connecting of band records, Shazam recordings to places, songs.

That's the use-case I enjoy with AI. Let it do the heavy-lifting, I'll enjoy the rest.

Making those connections are what builds a narrative: writing history is looking at the sources and constructing a narrative around that you think is significant. And if you really do find a connection so tedious, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the, for example, list of songs played one night at some event doesn't have any significance at all, it's just an unimportant detail pointlessly padding out the story.

AI here is not a tool, it's the author, or at the very least a co-author that greatly influences the human author. It selects what's important and then writes the narrative. It has its own biases. The narrative isn't based on what's personally important to the human creator, but rather the availability of data, those sources that are digitized. And then in turn the output shapes the human author's own perspective, changing even what the human will write on their own.