Not specifically a Beach Boys film, but...Thanks to the licensing company "Reeling In The Years Productions", footage from an ABC program that aired in February 1967 called "The Songmakers" has been released to YouTube, FINALLY! I've been writing about this and waiting for it for years.

This shows a Mamas And Papas session in Western #3 (Brian's favorite room) that was held in either late 66 or early 67, and features the Wrecking Crew cutting tracks. What is amazing is to consider we can see the same room with several of the same musicians in action during a session at the same time Brian was in there cutting tracks for Smile. So we get to see the exact same equipment and how things were set up and run inside Western #3 at the same time Brian was there. And it also shows...which I didn't realize until the clip was released...the band writing the song at John and Michelle's house with producer Lew Adler. This is the SAME house and likely the same room just a few months removed from when Brian and Paul McCartney hung out there for a jam session in April '67. And it's also where Brian spent time there too, hanging out and doing whatever else.

It's rare to see these things in live action, full color film/video, so this is short and apparently less content (I think?)  than what was originally aired but still a treat to watch. And there is more of the show (including a Bacharach-David-Warwick session) which hopefully the company will preview on their channel as well. The only other clip is Simon & Garfunkel from the same "Songmakers" program. More, please!

Here it is in glorious color, with audio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mspTGpiPzU

Here are some of my previous posts and research about that Songmakers program, which at the time was not available for public viewing and which had only trickled out in brief clips on an old M&P documentary (scroll down for more info and vintage press clippings) :

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,27354.msg666314.html#msg666314

The song being worked up became "Boys & Girls Together" on the "Deliver" album, released February 1967.

Shown in the video are the following musicians and staff, besides the M&P:
Hal Blaine drums, Tommy Tedesco guitar (with the Telecaster he smashed at a Mike Nesmith session later that year), Joe Osborn bass, "Doctor" Eric Hord banjo (the Doc was the M&P touring guitarist), Larry Knechtel on piano, Gary Coleman mallets/percussion, Bones Howe lead engineer, Bowen David assistant engineer, Lew Adler producer...and if anyone can spot any others in the film please add to the list! (Interestingly, Tommy is clearly shown playing guitar but is not credited on the album)

Enjoy!

Agreed, all good thoughts, HeyJude.

I posted this in another thread, but here's the Joe Thomas interview where he talks about how he and Brian developed ideas for the TWGMTR album:

https://notes.andrewromano.net/joethomasbeachboys

The process with Joe Thomas and Brian here sounds very much like what you describe... Joe kind of rolling with an open-ended, abstract, at times even slightly absurd process, helping to tease out Brian's ideas that might take weeks or months or years to fully develop. Kind of catching these little drops of magic where he can, and going wherever Brian's creative process goes, whatever that ends up looking like.

Mike is -- to put it mildly! -- not known for this kind of empathy and flexibility. And a process that sounds to Brian like "you and Mike are going to work together on Day X when he's not touring, and you'll go into a room at X time and come out with X number of songs" is certainly going to feel high-pressure, unnatural, and about a million miles removed from what Brian's comfortable with.

If it didn't happen organically or to Mike's satisfaction during the 2012 tour, it seems very, *very* unlikely to happen now.

The part of this which is hard to figure out in terms of Mike writing with Brian is that when reading through the Joe Thomas interview, Brian and Mike DID write together, and as others have said, in a way that's more in line with their previous successful collaborations like California Girls and Good Vibrations than Mike's ideal "room with a piano" scenario, or starting something from scratch. I don't know if Mike is/was looking for something to gripe about, or just bitching for the sake of it, but the Thomas interview clearly states that Mike and Brian co-wrote those songs mentioned, in the way they had done before. It goes against some of Mike's claims in subsequent years that he wasn't allowed to write with Brian, or whatever his claims were.

And I've also found through the years that those people writing here and elsewhere on the topic of songwriting and collaboration seem to have no direct experience either collaborating on an original song, working up a song and recording it in the studio, or other hands-on elements of creating original music. It's something Nik Venet even touched on during his testimony in court for the song credits legal case in the early 90's, and how the nature of making songs and making records is a unique process that involves ideas being thrown around sometimes randomly and haphazardly in order to create a finished song. If people have not experienced that process, and only take certain comments from books or interviews at face value thereby idealizing or simplifying the whole process, they miss most of the point.

If what Joe described isn't Brian and Mike working on songs together, i.e. "collaborating" to create finished songs, then someone needs to explain that one to me.

As a tie-in with the documentary, Sweetwater is offering new guitar and bass effects as well as an amp, designed to capture the signature sounds of the Beach Boys' records from the 60's. These were created by some of the best effects creators, and are supposed to give players access to the classic tones heard on BB's productions without having to go broke buying vintage gear. The question of how do I replicate that guitar or bass tone from a given song has been asked often before, and in these products they offer a solution that won't break the bank...and which also has the Beach Boys branding on it too.

I really like the "Punchline" Bass Station "all in one" pedal, as it offers the key components in the old signal chain in one device that you can use direct into the board as an amp simulator...perfect for that Ray or Carole tone providing you use a pick on a Fender bass! The other ones look cool too, that 12-string simulator would be handy to avoid carting a separate 12-string to gigs or sessions.

Check them out, and there's video of the guys recording a Beach Boys inspired original song using this gear on this link as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlQuawC6SE

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/the-beach-boys-studio-effects-collection/

Visual teaser showing the Punchline and the brand logo:

The question is where did these opinions originate about BWPS not being the definitive Smile, or whatever variations of that have been spoken. And one source and mindset is pretty obvious, and has been in the public record for nearly 20 years.

That would be the lawsuit Mike filed against Brian, Melinda, his manager Jean, David Leaf, The Mail On Sunday publication, and related interests surrounding a free CD giveaway.

It's a long read, so this is only the first part which describes the basis and background for Mike's case.

Decide for yourself, after reading this, how relative the language in the lawsuit is to those opinions of BWPS, Smile, etc. and what is the "real" Smile and whatever else surrounds that mindset.

And consider that one way to make Brian and Van Dyke's completed Smile less legitimate (or to refute it entirely) would be to claim it is not the real Smile, and that the real Smile was in effect stolen from The Beach Boys, who own the intellectual property as claimed in the lawsuit. Mike's suit made the same claims about "Pet Sounds" and Brian's live performances of that album too. Part of this, if not the crux of these claims, is that Brian performing and releasing his versions of his own compositions was hurting Mike and "The Beach Boys" financially, and causing "confusion" in the fan marketplace.

The language in this suit explains a lot.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE LOVE, Plaintiff,vs.THE MAIL ON SUNDAY; ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD.; SANCTUARY RECORDS GROUP, LTD., SANCTUARY RECORDS GROUP NY; SANCTUARY MUSIC MANAGEMENT, INC.; SANCTUARY MUSIC PRODUCTIONS, INC.; BIGTIME.TV; BRIAN WILSON; JEAN SIEVERS; THE LIPPIN GROUP, INC; SOOP LLC; DAVID LEAF; and DOES 1 through 100. Defendants Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR THE FOLLOWING CAUSES OF ACTION:Violation of Statutory and Common Law Rights of Publicity; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Action for Indemnity Under Written Indemnity Agreement; Declaratory Relief; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Copyright Infringement for Unlawful Reproduction, Unlawful Preparation of Derivative Work, and Unlawful Distribution; Federal Trademark Infringement; Federal Unfair Competition – False Representation; Federal Trademark Dilution; State of California Unlawful Business Practices; Interference with Contractual Relations; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantages; and Civil ConspiracyJURY TRIAL DEMANDED


NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION
1. This action arises out of an international advertising and marketing scheme organized and orchestrated by Brian Wilson and his agents to promote the release of The Beach Boys’ long-awaited Smile album, at the expense of fellow Beach Boy Mike Love and The Beach Boys corporate entity, Brother Records, Inc. (“BRI”). This multimedia promotion shamelessly misappropriated Mike Love’s songs, likeness, and The Beach Boys trademark, as well as the Smile album itself, which has been identified with The Beach Boys for over thirty-seven years. The primary means used to implement the scheme was the use of “The Beach Boys” registered trademark, the misappropriation of images of Mike Love and the band, coupled with the “give- away” of over 2.6 million music CDs entitled “Good Vibrations.” This CD included a number of Beach Boys hit songs composed by Mike Love and Brian Wilson. The free Good Vibrations CD increased the sale of defendant Brian Wilson’s Smile CD, and defendant The Mail on Sunday’s newspapers, but it has had an adverse effect on the sales and value of the many Beach Boys CDs available for sale in the marketplace. Incredibly, the emails and correspondence by and between the defendants three weeks before the “give-away” on September 24, 2004 admit that they had to use The Beach Boys name and images to “engage” the audience. This suit seeks damages including the disgorgement of millions of dollars of illicit profits, and the protection of The Beach Boys trademark and the name and likeness of Mike Love and The Beach Boys
2. Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson, Dennis Wilson and Alan Jardine were the original members of the world famous Beach Boys band. From November 1961, when The Beach Boys released their first hit record Surfin, until the present, Mike Love, as the lead singer on most of their songs, has been the only member of the band to consistently perform live concerts. Brian Wilson essentially stopped touring in 1964, to be eventually replaced by current Beach Boy Bruce Johnston. Dennis Wilson passed away in 1983, Carl Wilson died in 1998, and Alan Jardine was not a member of the touring band from 1962 until 1965, and again from 1998 until the present. The current directors and equal shareholders of BRI are Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson’s estate, and Alan Jardine. Alan Jardine became a shareholder in 1973.
3. Contrary to the myth that Brian Wilson was the sole musical genius behind The Beach Boys songs, Mike Love and Brian Wilson are credited as co-authors of nearly all of The Beach Boys’ hits; and Mike Love and Carl Wilson carried the performing band for forty years. Many of Mike Love’s early compositional and lyrical contributions to The Beach Boys songs were concealed for many years by Brian Wilson’s father, Murray Wilson, who was the first manager of The Beach Boys, and then later by Brian Wilson, in order to direct the valuable songwriting royalties for The Beach Boys hits to Murray and Brian Wilson. However, this injustice was corrected after a four-month federal court jury trial and ensuing verdict and judgment in 1994 (hereinafter “the Love partnership action”) crediting Mike Love as the co-author of thirty-five of The Beach Boys’ songs, including such hits as California Girls, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, Help Me Rhonda, 409, and Be True To Your School. This judgment legally established Mike Love and Brian Wilson as partners in these songs and that Brian Wilson owed fiduciary duties to Mike Love in connection with their songs. Before the trial court decided on the amount of damages, Mike Love and Brian Wilson entered into a settlement agreement, i.e., a contract, wherein the settlement agreement was incorporated into the judgment.
4. In addition to his songwriting contributions to The Beach Boys, as the longtime front man for the band, Mike Love has been historically recognized as the primary voice and image of The Beach Boys; and Carl Wilson was historically recognized as the musical leader. After Carl’s death in 1998, Alan Jardine announced in the entertainment media that he no longer wished to tour with The Beach Boys; and Mike Love announced privately within BRI that he would no longer tour with Alan Jardine because of Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members. BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark. Since 1998, Mike Love has scrupulously fulfilled his license obligations, using the trademark to perform as The Beach Boys in approximately 150 live concerts per year all over the world. He has paid over eleven million dollars to BRI as royalties on this license.
5. In the same time frame following Carl Wilson’s death, Alan Jardine misappropriated the trademark, bastardized The Beach Boys name, altered the traditional Beach Boys harmonies, line-up and music, defamed Mike Love and The Beach Boys in the media, and then overtly infringed upon the trademark by using it to perform live concerts while duping ticket-buyers into believing it was the BRI-licensed Beach Boys. Jardine wreaked havoc in the marketplace causing BRI to sue for a permanent injunction which was granted and then upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Brother Records, Inc. v Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Jardine is still a 25% shareholder and a Director of BRI (receiving 25% of the license revenues), he is an adjudicated infringer who has breached his fiduciary duties to BRI.
6. Like Jardine, Brian Wilson has now with the “give-away” scheme, pursued a path to promote himself, destroy The Beach Boys trademark, and breach his fiduciary duties to BRI and to Mike Love. Historically, these breaches are the continuation of over thirty-five years of conduct by Brian Wilson to damage The Beach Boys and BRI. Between 1961 and 1966 Mike Love and Brian Wilson successfully collaborated with Carl and Dennis Wilson in the creation of hit after hit and album after album in the rapidly growing world of rock and roll music. Mike and Brian are recognized as prodigious song-writing pioneers in the early development of this musical genre. But beginning in 1965, drugs began to destroy Brian Wilson. By 1967, Brian lived either in his bed or in his sand-box in his Beverly Hills mansion. While Mike Love and The Beach Boys were touring without him, Brian was surrounded by drug addicts, drug dealers, parasites, and plagiarizers. In 1967, while Brian was living in an environment of drugs and physical and mental illness, Brian and The Beach Boys created the “Smile” album pursuant to their contract with Capitol Records, and paid for by Capitol. Brian also consulted some of the hangers-on that surrounded him at the time.
7. Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties. Between 1991 and 2002, Brian was under a court-ordered conservatorship, first with a court appointed lawyer until 1995, and then with his just married wife. In 2002, Brian began to resurrect his career by touring with his own band. However his “performance” has been, for the most part, limited by his past mental and emotional problems. In order to promote himself, Brian began to misappropriate BRI property. In 2003, he misappropriated “Pet Sounds,” a Beach Boys album, all while serving as a fiduciary to BRI. In September, 2004, Brian Wilson, without permission or a license from BRI, the owner of Smile, orchestrated the scheme to release a Smile CD. Up until then, Smile had been called the most recognized unreleased album in the history of rock ‘n’ roll. Smile has obtained “secondary meaning” as a Beach Boys property, and historically has been identified with The Beach Boys trademark. The defendants here exploited Mike Love and The Beach Boys’ tie-ins with Brian Wilson and Smile to promote the sale of the Smile CD, The Mail on Sunday newspaper, and the services of BigTime.TV.
8. The acts and omissions perpetrated by defendants to misappropriate the songs, the copyrights, publicity rights, the names and likenesses, and The Beach Boys trademark are summarized as follows:
· The Mail on Sunday’s unauthorized use of Mike Love’s songs, name, and images in its September 24, 2004 edition to promote the giveaway of 2.6 million copies of the Good Vibrations CD and the associated sale of 2.6 million copies of its newspaper;
· The Mail on Sunday’s unauthorized use of The Beach Boys trademark to promote the giveaway of 2.6 million copies of the Good Vibrations CD and the associated sale of 2.6 million copies of its newspaper;
· The Sanctuary defendants’ unauthorized use of Mike Love’s musical compositions California Girls, Good Vibrations, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, Darlin and Help Me Rhonda, which were included on the Good Vibrations CD;
· The Sanctuary defendants’ unauthorized use of Mike Love’s name and images on the cover of the Good Vibrations CD;
· The Sanctuary defendants’ unauthorized use of The Beach Boys trademark on the cover of the Good Vibrations CD;
· BigTime.TV’s unauthorized use of Mike Love’s songs, name, and images and the unauthorized use of The Beach Boys trademark to promote the Good Vibrations CD on television and the Internet, and to promote its own services;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his partnership agreement with Mike Love by exploiting their co-authored songs for Brian Wilson’s benefit and to Mike Love’s detriment;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by replacing the lyrics Mike Love wrote for their co-authored Good Vibrations song with those written by Van Dyke Parks for the version of Good Vibrations that appears on the Smile CD;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by not informing Mike Love of the inclusion of their co-authored songs on the Good Vibrations CD used to promote the sales of Brian Wilson’s Smile CD;
· Brian Wilson’s breach of his fiduciary duty to Mike Love by participating in the scheme to give away the Good Vibrations CD, which included many Beach Boy hits, thereby devaluing other Beach Boys albums being sold by BRI and causing less of these other Beach Boys albums to be sold;
· Defendants David Leaf, Jean Sievers, SOOP LLC, The Lippin Group, and others tied in the giveaway of the Good Vibrations CD with a worldwide promotion of Smile by, inter alia, producing a television “documentary” using copyrighted Beach Boys materials and The Beach Boys trademark in such a way as to represent to the world that Smile was a BRI product, and that Smile was the property of Brian Wilson and that Brian Wilson and his new band was, in fact, the real Beach Boys.

RIP
…But any chance of a re-do of the C50 Live album without autotune now? 😁

While there are cost issues involved in clearing a ton of songs for a Blu-ray of the full show (though that should happen too, just charge more!), there's no reason to not release the 61-song Royal Albert Hall gig from the reunion tour.

There should have been a bunch of consolation releases in the aftermath of the reunion stalling out prematurely.

Unfortunately, Mike still seems kind of irked about some aspects of the reunion, so I'm not sure how likely it is for them to do what at this point would essentially be "archival" releases from the 50th anniversary.

Not to be morbid, but we've just recently been talking about Mike developed some pretty intense animus towards Joe Thomas by the end of the reunion project, so I don't know if working with the reunion material in any form might be easier in the future now?

It could also depend on who owns the rights to the footage, along with the other moving parts involving rights, clearances, etc. The question is whether the footage is owned or in any way controlled by the Wilson-Love-Thomas LLC "50 Big Ones", or whether everything went to Capitol, Brother, etc. Was "50 Big Ones LLC" dissolved after the tour and subsequent media releases from that tour, or is it still in effect and could have a stake in that footage and control over what gets done with it in the future?

I agree, that Royal Albert Hall gig and the other final shows from the tour in the UK deserve a standalone release. No post-production "fixing" either!

Just a little bit of history too, that same night "The Big 610" was hosting The Beach Boys package show, Frank Zappa and The Mothers played a gig at the Fillmore with Lenny Bruce! 1966 was a great year for music...

And The Sunrays and Neil Diamond also played with the BB's but were not included on the posters:
https://www.sahmigo.com/concerts/ds_concerts/1966/1966-06-24_san_francisco.html

This is the original poster for that show which sold at auction last year for $800

...But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

It’s sometimes difficult to separate fact from fiction with respect to Welles’s late projects; which were mere ideas, which had a measure of substance, which had a reasonable prospect of actually happening.

But it does seem to be true that Welles actively sought funding, in the 1970s, to enable him to shoot a new ending for Ambersons, featuring the still-surviving actors in their original roles. Although it wouldn’t have been the original ending – instead, it would have been a sort of “many years later” postscript – it would have been in keeping with his original vision.

If he had found the money, would that have been the definitive Ambersons? Well, he didn’t find it, so we’re spared the decision. But the story is a powerful reminder of just how miraculous it is that the original creators were able to return to SMiLE and complete it, all those years later.

C&N

Yes, Welles definitely had his share of battles with studios over his vision versus the studios' final cuts, and it's all a fascinating journey into the inner workings of Hollywood movie-making and politics, and perhaps also a look into the creative mind of someone like Welles. I'd also add his battles over "Touch Of Evil" to my earlier examples, where the studio yet again cut scenes from Welles' original edit and that led Welles to write a long memo outlining his own ideas for the edits...which led to a project to restore the film to Welles' original vision based on that memo and which actually happened after his death.

So again that falls into the questions about original vision versus the released version, and the validity of a "restoration" or reconstruction after the death of the main creator. With Touch Of Evil, more than Ambersons, I'd say if they worked meticulously based on Welles' own notes to do the reconstruction, the question would be (again) is that cut and restoration the definitive version of Touch Of Evil. It's a stretch, yes, but for all those years leading up to BWPS, I think fans making their own mixes and sequences were coming close to that same question and dilemma with far less to work with in terms of original intent or creator's intent...which again is why I think it's helpful that we got BWPS to act as the definite answer in that specific case.

Now let me introduce this somewhat new development into the mix. This article is about Magnificent Ambersons and a project to restore it to Welles' original vision, replicating the scenes that were cut without Welles' consent and presumably lost forever:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/18/magnificent-ambersons-rebirth-for-ruined-orson-welles-masterpiece-that-rivalled-citizen-kane


Read through that, and see if it connects as it did with me to the current debates about AI technology in music. Or the use of AI in general to either finish unfinished works or create works that were intended to be a certain way but never materialized. It's all fascinating to me, and I wonder if the negativity surrounding some of the AI works so far will be put on projects such as this one with film restorations. I can't see a dividing line between the two media and the use of tech to recreate or "finish" lost or impossible projects.

I look at it from Brian's point of view - he is quoted as preferring his 2004 version (over TSS), and he was disappointed in how TSS sounded. I put a lot of stock into what the artist says - if Brian says TSS is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version. If Brian says the 2004 version is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version...and Brian has said as much about BWPS.

Brian speaking about the 2004 version:

At the studio, Mark Linett, our engineer, walked over and handed me a box. “What’s this?” I asked. “That’s SMiLE,” he said. I held it right next to my heart.

That says all I need to know about BWPS. I see TSS as a collection of historical documents, strung together to emulate the completed work (BWPS). I love TSS, and it is my most treasured boxset. And the amount of care and love that went into every aspect of that set is instantly apparent. However, I can't see it as being another official version of Smile, because the artist himself doesn't prefer it. It's like, if Beethoven released his 9th symphony, but years later someone else publishes an early draft of his 9th - we wouldn't call the early draft "official", because the artist himself didn't prefer it. I don't see any difference with Smile.

I think every fan has a right to their own personal preference, but I also think that the artist should have final say in what is the definitive/legitimate/official version. Because, like with my Beethoven hypothetical, in 200 years the fans of the work shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't official/definitive. Rather, Beethoven/Wilson himself should have that say. And Brian has said that BWPS is Smile.

Excellent points, and very important ones to consider.

I'll add one more element to this: In the case of Smile specifically, the main creative forces behind the work itself were still alive and directly involved in finishing the work. It wasn't a case of scholars decades or centuries later trying to "finish" a dead composer's work based on manuscripts and notes found in archives; Smile was the product of the same two musicians and writers who envisioned and worked on the piece originally, reconvening with the expressly set goal of finishing the work for public performance as a full musical presentation in movements.

If either Brian or Van Dyke were not the ones finishing it, I'd probably feel differently about BWPS being the definitive version, the completed version. But they were the same guys back together picking up where they left off in 1967 finally putting the last chapter in the book of Smile as a complete work from the original creators.

The sad part of unfinished works in general is when the creators are no longer around to actually see it to a natural conclusion and say "this is now finished as I want it." Years ago I went on a few research deep-dives about parallels in other entertainment media like film which seemed to be similar to the Smile saga. I had a decent list going in both music and film, mostly film, but unfortunately that list and my thoughts are long gone or misplaced.

But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

And another was Nicholas Ray's "We Can't Go Home Again", a bizarre but unforgettable film experiment that saw Ray battling to edit it into a complete work but never finishing it before his death. Years later the film was "finished" by those close to Ray and using his original thoughts and ideas to finish the edits as they thought Ray would have wanted it had he had the technology, time, and other aspects in his life come together so he could finish it (does that sound familiar?)...but it still isn't and could never be exactly what Nicholas Ray envisioned in his mind as a completed work, which again lends the Wilson-Parks BWPS Smile that much more weight because they were both directly involved in finishing it and calling it done.

Check out the Ray and Welles projects I mentioned, if anything it's an interesting historical trip about two radically different films made by two of the most challenging, frustrating, and respected directors and filmmakers of the last century.

And there was one musical piece I found - cannot remember the name - where the lack of technology hampered a 20th century composer enough to where he couldn't finish his work until technology was developed to allow the work to be performed as he envisioned. If that sounds vaguely familiar to anyone, please fill in the details!

RIP Joe Thomas, wow. He deserves credit for getting Brian back into the songwriting and recording game for sure, and also having the connections in the video production business to get Brian back onto video screens as his own entity rather than part of Beach Boys documentaries and TV specials. Keep in mind too that a lot of what Joe did in those areas was before YouTube and when getting on TV or video actually meant striking a deal with a network, distribution companies, and other outlets to actually get the videos to fans. It wasn't as easy as editing together existing clips and creating fake fan-made promos to go direct to Youtube or Vimeo, you had to play the game and actually strike deals to get releases and distribution.

I think that was Joe's strong point, and the muscle he brought to the table. He would have a multimedia project laid out and ready to go, that included not just the music but also video and live concerts. That's quite an undertaking and involves many moving parts...so when Joe did Brian's concert in Vegas when he had Blondie and Ricky, Nate Ruess, etc, and when Joe was part of the LLC set up with Mike and Brian called "50 Big Ones", he could pitch to various labels and distributors a plan which had all of those elements laid out and ready to go. Labels love it when they can get a ready-made project with little effort from their own in-house teams. I think that's what ultimately helped the 50th anniversary get off the ground, the fact that the label was getting an album, tour, and video with promotions and it was a package ready to unwrap when it was time to kick it off. Results and opinions obviously being mixed on the end results, but Joe also did a similar thing with the Stars and Stripes project, having both an album and video ready to roll, along with live appearances to get the project more visibility and promotion for the band. Credit to Joe for doing that, it's not an easy thing to navigate those kinds of multimedia projects, especially in the 90's and prior to Youtube's dominance in the field.

I've had issues with his musical choices and have mentioned them publicly, specifically the production styles and sounds on those projects where he was most involved with Brian, but again credit to Joe for being the one to inspire Brian to write dozens of new songs and get them released to fans. If Brian needed a collaborator or a facilitator (which was one of Joe's biggest strengths in his work with Brian and the band), Joe was there and got new music flowing again from Brian and also had outlets to promote it. Whether fans have positive or negative opinions of those projects, Joe got the ball rolling and made things happen.

[He loved it.]

Al Jardine spills the beans again:

“There is some really wonderful footage of our performing,” Jardine said. “But unfortunately, Carl and Dennis are gone, so you don’t have their point of view. You have the narrative, according to Mike Love, and you have me in there somewhere in between, going, uh-hmm, sure. The truth is, we didn’t have enough content the way I would have liked to have done it. The producer did what he could, with what he had.”

https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2024/05/beach-boys-cofounder-reflects-on-career-future/

I'm withholding a lot of opinions for now because it hasn't been streamed yet, but if Al is correct in his words and this film is the narrative according to Mike Love, is that really what fans have been waiting for, or is that what fans can already get from various sources and outlets? We've already seen and heard the narrative according to Mike, and part of that was the "official" bio-pic "An American Family" produced by John Stamos that ran on ABC back in 2000, which was a complete farce.

Side note - From the same interview, Al said this: "Later in life, Brian and I went back on the road together. He loved it. He called me, ‘come out and join me.’ Neither of us were working with Mike (Love) anymore. It was a natural fit.”

He loved it. So much for a miserable Brian being forced to tour all those years, as we were told in another "narrative" that wasn't factual.

Gethen Jenkins, real honky tonk music..."Bottle In My Hand"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzLjnrZSbfs

And then there's one of the best authentic country bands on the scene, Marty Stuart and The Fabulous Superlatives, with Kenny Vaughn and Marty playing dual lead guitar and tearing the roof off the Letterman show back in the day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVMdwpcl3m4

The Red Clay Strays, "Wondering Why":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbxfFKvoAU4

Good band, good sound.

Re: Charley Crockett, he's been releasing album after album for quite some time, I got into him about a year ago when he put out a single "I'm Just A Clown" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku04drQsVjw ) that sounded like a Bill Withers tune with BB King sitting in on lead guitar, I dug it a lot. Then another single after that, "Trinity River" which he's had out for almost a decade, started to get more airplay and that featured gut-bucket, 1930's style muted trumpet with a swing feel! Very cool, a country artist with his feet in a lot of different style pools.

There is a resurgence of honky tonk music too, which I think is very cool. Authentic, sh*t-kicking 50's and 60's honky tonk sounds that may or may not have been inspired by Shooter Jennings' work in that style...whatever the case, it's still kind of underground but bubbling up.

And it's not pure country, but it is too at the same time, like that hybrid sound Roy Orbison had on his biggest hits of the early 60's, Stephen Sanchez:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxldQ9eX2wo


Interesting how many younger guitarists on these records seem to have found the tremolo/vibrato channel on their vintage amps  

This is an interesting little interview clip with Sheryl Crow. Listen to her describe when she's talking to a female writer who needed a male voice for one her demos, who paid a service $5 to create a fake AI John Mayer voice to sing her demo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5DX5cB_m34

If you wonder what many, if not most (surely not all, but probably most) artists think of doing this, watch and listen to her reaction.

I'm not saying ever application of this is the exact same scenario. But in scenarios like this, it's altering some fundamental aspects of how music is created, and I think artists that are sensitive to humans being the driving force behind that process are not embracing of using fake AI voices.

If you want an example of something that has fundamentally changed how music is created, one of many no less, look no further than digital recording technology. It has changed nearly every aspect of how music is recorded and presented to listeners. Modern listeners are now conditioned to hear things which are often physically impossible due to the ease of editing, fixing, and correcting elements of the music. The notion of recording a song with a "human" feel or with imperfections is all but gone from popular music, unless there is an artist with an analog fetish who only records as if it were 60 years ago in an old studio. Drummers sound perfect thanks to beat mapping, singers hit every note perfectly thanks to Melodyne and other pitch correction software, guitar and bass parts are not only played perfectly in time but they're sterilized by editing out all the squeaks and noises inherent in the instrument itself...the list goes on. It's at the point where many younger listeners are so conditioned by this sterilization and fixing that something played 100% real and live can sound "off" or wrong, and that also has removed the notion of a real groove or a pocket from the process, since a beat mapping software will take all of the ebb and flow and variation out of a drum part in order to quantize it to sound perfect.

So based on that, and all of that too is what Sheryl Crow has used on her own music I'm sure, again the question is how is AI as a new tech any different? We're already hearing a majority of pop music that has been altered and sterilized by existing technology to make it sound different than when it was recorded. Some including me would say the same radical shift in the creation of music happened when audio engineers learned how to edit tape seamlessly. It created a product that was not a pure or true reproduction of a musical performance, and also led to some of the greatest popular music ever recorded.

And don't get me wrong, of course I share similar concerns about the AI technology and where or how far it could go, but ultimately it's a tool just like digital recording, sequencing, editing, and quantizing is a tool that has fundamentally altered the process of making and recording music, and shows no signs of disappearing.

We can't make blanket statements or assumptions about how artists feel overall about the use of AI voice modeling in these ways, I haven't seen and don't think there is a consensus that exists among artists and their opinions on and use of this tech. Each artist is obviously different and has different opinions of this tech. I'm sure if there are some that are totally against it, there are thousands more who are using it in some way. Suppose a singer writes a song with a specific legendary voice in mind to sing it, similar to Brian with Sinatra. Let's say that person thought of their song as something Marvin Gaye would sing - If the tech is available, and they know how to use or access it, I'm sure they would use the tech to put Marvin's voice on their song, even just to hear what it would sound like. Then consider the thousands of other legends that could be plugged into the equation, and how many musicians would want to hear what such a voice sounded like singing a song that they directly inspired.

That's where another separation comes in: Is it done for personal use or a love for the music, is it done for a demo purpose, or is it done for purely commercial reasons? Obviously if an artist is still alive and working, they would not want their voice used on a commercial project without their 100% consent, that's a no-brainer and I don't think any of what we're discussing crosses that line because it's not a project for sale. But then again, if random fans start using the voices of famous artists in non-commercial ways, and not selling the works for profit, who can control that until it crosses a line of either trademark/copyright or standards of decency in a legal sense? Anyone can try to make their own McDonalds Big Mac at home using recipes found online, and even serve it to people they know...as long as they don't sell it commercially. Anyone can make a poster using a famous copyrighted image or photo, and hang it on their wall...as long as they don't sell it commercially. All of the landmark court cases regarding home recording of copyrighted media, whether it was the Betamax case for video or the blank cassette suits for audio, came down to a person's ability and right to copy and use copyrighted material...as long as it's not sold commercially.

I'm just going out on a limb and suggesting there are probably a good number of artists working in the music business who have used AI in the ways we're discussing, and perhaps mostly for fun or to see what their songs would sound like if another artist was singing them. That's far different from Taylor Swift releasing a song that features an AI version of Prince singing a duet with her and doing it for profit, and not securing rights from Prince's estate before doing so.

Perhaps in the near future there will be court cases regarding AI similar to those regarding sampling in the 90's that literally changed the music business, or the Betamax cases which established the guidelines around home recording and copying of owned material in the 70's and 80's.

I have always been curious about Mike's  penchant for writing "in the same room" with Brian.  I mean know they have done that in the past (The Warmth of the Sun comes to mind), but just once I would like one of these interviewers to ask Mike why that stipulation is so important to him.  Some of their greatest songs were in fact written the exact way that Mike now apparently despises.  Mike's  legendary tales of dictating the lyrics to Good Vibrations to his wife while driving to the studio and writing the lyrics to California Girls outside the recording studio being two examples.  If that worked so well on those classics, why is it so offensive now?

It's a psychological if not publicly convenient crutch that Mike has leaned on for decades in many interviews, to set up the imagery of that mythical room with a piano and a notepad where he and cousin Brian could write songs like they did in the old days. It allows a lot of the reality of various situations through the years to morph into a mythical place where everything would be OK if only they could get into that room alone and write. It's been discussed among some of us fans for years, and it's a bit melancholy and sad to think how much weight might be put onto that scenario by Mike, but it also puts the reality of the situation front and center, where if Brian wanted to write with Mike he would have done so. Contrary to some mythology, including from Mike himself, there was no one or nothing stopping the two men from writing together for the past 25 years. Pick up the phone and call, then the answer is either yes or no.

Had AI been around in the 60s, might Brian have considered using it?

Ok, I'll ask another question: If Brian was to listen to something Dae Lims made-- say his AI SMiLe-- what might his reaction be?

I think Smile may not be the best example to choose. To Brian, he finished Smile with Van Dyke in 2004 and they presented it to the world as both a fully-realized complete live piece and then a subsequent studio album of that same piece of work. It's done in his mind, and hearing newer interpretations of it probably wouldn't carry much weight other than to appreciate the musicality and execution of the work. And Smile still carries a lot of very heavy and personal emotions for Brian, who knows what feelings that would trigger in the man.

A better example might be the version of "Still I Dream Of It" that was done with an AI Frank Sinatra singing the lead over the orchestration. That vocal specifically is something Brian envisioned for the song originally, something he tried to make happen and wanted to happen but it sadly never did, and cannot happen in reality. I think an AI project like that - going on the making the impossible a reality mindset with a lot of imagination mixed in - is something he would be more interested in hearing because it's something he actually heard in his own mind when he was writing the song but something that can never happen physically. That kind of ethic is the best of this particular use of AI technology because it's 100% rooted in reality.

I think the scenario lies somewhere in the middle of all this, as is often the case. Don't leave out the label's influence on the timeline when considering all of this, and how being presented with a handful of songs that needed touch-up work versus ground-up construction was probably a safer bet than agreeing to a scenario where a full album of newly written songs by two men who had not written together successfully in years had to be finished before any other planning would piggyback on the album's release date.

Simplistic terms: What ended up happening was Brian and Joe had songs to choose from, the writing process was mostly done and some if not most had frameworks of arrangements with demos to reference. Getting Brian and Mike in a room to crank out even a half-dozen new songs from scratch and then having them be good enough to release as a "reunion album" with a lot of hype and a major tour planned? Risky is the word I'd use, and corporate labels don't like risk of that sort considering they had been burned quite often by The Beach Boys since the 80's in terms of presenting releasable, marketable new material even when they were "hot" in 1989.

And timelines can change plans in the world of business, simple fact. If Mike's original notions of writing this stuff with Brian alone in a room from scratch didn't materialize,  that's how business works. And as has been mentioned, the teaser for this if I recall was a new version and revamp of Do It Again...going with the oldies concept...which also got scrapped and probably thankfully so.

I don't think (or actually see where) anyone is looking for a theoretical or hypothetical endorsement from Brian on using AI in these discussions. The question was asking opinions if he would have used it had it been available 60-70 years ago, and in my opinion the answer would be a resounding yes, as would be the same answer if Brian were replaced by Lennon, Emerick, Townshend, Page, or any artist or audio engineer of note from the same era. How they would use it is one of the parameters, whether it would end up on released commercial material, if they would use it for demo purposes, or if they would simply tinker with it for fun...bottom line still being if they would use it or at least try it. How is that shifting the goalposts when it's a direct answer to the question which was open-ended and pure fantasy hypothetical to begin with? The actual facts and history we have of those artists from that era looking to new technology to expand their sonic toolbox and palette to create new sounds would hypothetically suggest they would of course try out new technology to further their art because they have a history of doing exactly that, and unless they were anti-tech Luddites who chose to record live to 2-track tape (or even to single-track mono disc) in eternity for whatever reason, they would try new technology if it would enhance their music.

Just speculating here, but I can totally see Brian Wilson using this tech in the 1960s to emulate the Ronettes for a demo of ‘Don’t Worry Baby’, or an attempt to convince the Beatles how good they would’ve sounded on ‘Girl Don’t Tell Me’ had Brian wanted to approach them about recording it.

This is a guy who double-tracked, sped up tape, used studio effects, used pop bottles, had Vosse record water sounds - he was all about using the bare minimum to the latest technology to create new sounds and experiences. Not to mention all the people he produced: The Honeys, Sharon Marie, The Survivors, Glen Campbell, his attempts with Redwood, etc. He wasn’t all about The Beach Boys, and from the get-go was looking for different sounds (whether vocals or instrumentals) to produce/create.

If Brian had the potential to do this all on his own I can totally see him taking advantage of that technology - if merely for experimental demos - or to show his artists exactly what he was hearing in his head. Or to add minor touches to recorded vocals by any of his artists. Etc etc.

That's a great point and element in the process which I totally missed: Add every songwriter and songwriting team to the discussion, and if those writers were contracted to write new material for any name artists, whether it be Elvis, Sinatra, or whoever...they could demo a song with an approximation of the target artist's voice on the demo and present that demo to the artist, managers, producer, A&R, etc and have it sound close to what the song would be as sung by that artist.

Yes in that case I can absolutely see AI voice replication technology being used and embraced in those scenarios. Sometimes (or many times) the voice and the sound of that voice literally makes a song and a record greater than the song itself.

Credit to Mike, he's a professional at these promotional interviews, he sticks to the script most of the time and delivers the same answers consistently. It's not a criticism, but that interview posted above is like a carbon copy of interviews he was giving to promote his shows in 2014, 2015, 2016, and onward. He has his techniques down pat. In fact if someone wanted to, unless the links are dead by now, they could reference interviews from the 2014-2018 period and beyond and compare them, and a lot of it would be similar if not a carbon copy. Like I said, he's a pro at these press calls and has the lines down pat.

I often find the “so-and-so used groundbreaking methods in the 60s, I’m sure they’d be up for X” a bit of a wonky supposition.

I’m not saying there are zero parallels between artificially produced AI voices today and any number of tech developments of the past. But I also think it’s pretty reductive to just assume that “Brian liked new recording methods and tech in the 60s; I’m sure he would have also used fake AI voices as well if he could have.”

I realize that often what people are talking about in these hypotheticals is Brian using AI for like an instrument sound or something. And sure, that would essentially equate to another method of creating samples for a synth.

What we’ve been largely talking about here are AI *voices*. A person faking Brian’s voice with software is far different from a theoretical scenario where Brian uses machine-learning to get a specific piano sound for a synth, where he or some other human would still be playing the instrument.

To believe that sensitive artists wouldn’t perhaps see a difference between tech made to enhance HUMANS making the music (e.g. synths, effects, etc.) and an *artificial* computer-generated voice, isn’t really thinking much of those artists.

But really, considering people *today* often don’t understand what or how these AI vocals (or AI generated art of any medium) are generated, it’s hard to even imagine how someone in the 60s would have wrapped their head around a PC, let alone AI software trained on other recorded examples.

But frankly, we have *some* insight into this now, because there are a number of artists from the 60s and 70s who are still making music today who also *can’t* sing like they did back then. How many of those artists have used AI to create fake versions of their own voice? They’d have *more* motive (and theoretically knowledge) to alter their voice now than they would have in their prime.

That all being said, I would also say an artist doing something with their OWN voice (or image, etc.) with AI would be somewhat different from a third party doing it. If Paul McCartney wants to sing into a program and guide AI software trained on *his own voice*, then at least this is all being done with the person’s approval and everything we’re hearing is based on that person’s voice. Not ideal by any means; I don’t need artists to do this. But I’ll take that over some random person doing it, especially if the artist had some specific and perhaps unique prompt in approaching doing it, as opposed to the fake AI vocals from fans which are essentially aural fanfic.

*That* all being said, I did take some time in the interest of renewed open-mindedness and continued good faith to go back and re-listen/listen to a good deal of the Beach Boys/Brian AI stuff, and I hope to post some thoughtful, non-cynical, yet honest comments on those shortly. 

It feels like you have conveniently bypassed one of the main points I wrote in my earlier opinions about Brian using AI in a hypothetical scenario where he had the option to use it if it existed 60-70 years ago.

Brian in his teens was already using what was then new and developing audio recording tech and techniques to replicate the vocal sound of his favorite group the Four Freshmen, and we can actually hear some of those original reel tapes as proof. Why is it such a stretch to open the possibility that the same guy who was already doing this would have done the same thing (for the same goals and results) if better technology existed and was available in 1960? That's different from using it on a commercial recording when he became a professional producer and creator, and I was clear in separating the two in the hypothetical scenario. But as someone who was already experimenting with manipulating voices using new technology in his teen years, I can't see why it's not a possibility to think he'd grab even better technology to do the same things and at least experiment with the new tech to achieve the same goals.

And I will for the sake of discussion add even another layer in creating music: Would Brian have used AI technology to create lyrics for his music? A plausible scenario could be applied to any one of his known collaborations in the 60's hit-making period. He wants to write a song about hot rods and a drag race...he inputs into the AI a scenario such as "two guys are racing their hot rods", and asks the AI to generate a set of lyrics on that topic. The AI creates something, Brian picks, chooses, and edits the better ideas from the AI generated results, and fits them in to his music creating a melody, rhythm, etc., adding anything else necessary to complete the song.

It's the same process he did with Usher, Christian, Asher, Love, etc...with the AI essentially running with the idea Brian had for lyrics to fit the concept he had in mind and the music he had created.

Is it really a stretch to think Brian or any songwriter wouldn't have at least tried it to see what lyrical ideas the AI would generate?

Had AI been around in the 60s, might Brian have considered using it?

Since it's all hypothetical, I'll say yes - with exemptions.

Consider how Brian in his teens, after getting a reel-to-reel tape deck as a gift, was using that technology which at that time in the late 50's was pretty much a decade old, and that's it. We have home tapes of young Brian stacking his voice through overdubs to replicate the sound of his beloved Four Freshmen. Listen to Brian's trademark high-range vocals: It's damn near the same as Bob Flanigan, in tone, phrasing, and general overall timbre to carry the high voice lines in that vocal stack. It can be uncanny at times to hear Flanigan and compare it to a 60's Brian vocal, circa 61-64. But it isn't actually uncanny when we consider Brian modeled his voice and vocal technique after Flanigan's with the Freshmen.

So breaking down all notions of reality and the time/space continuum, if that young Brian were using new and developing technology at that time to recreate the vocal sounds of his favorite group, why wouldn't it be probable that if a technology existed which would allow him to recreate those vocals as the AI programs are doing now, he'd be at least messing around with it and experimenting? Let's call it "analog Brian", and say if he were trying to have his own "Four Freshmen" in the form of overdubbing himself on a reel-to-reel in his teens singing other material, why wouldn't he do the same thing if another tool existed to do that same thing?

Remember that fragment of Smile which became known as Dixieland? That was a vocal game the Boys used to play in the car and elsewhere where each voice would riff on improvised lines like a Dixieland jazz combo, with the voices as the instruments. Now if tech existed where Brian could actually manipulate what those voices were doing and actually have the voices turn out sounding like a clarinet, trumpet, etc...don't you think he would have at least tried it?

Brian's willingness to work with new technology, new techniques, and new ways of recording music throughout the 60's and into the 70's is sometimes left out of the discussions. One of his favorite albums is and was "Switched On Bach", if that adds anything to the discussion. A totally "new" sound using one of the first commercially available Moogs to exist, and I think it inspired Brian's use of synths well into the 70's where some would consider him like a pioneer of synth-based pop tracks with the Love You album.

If a new technology came out that allowed him to experiment with sound, I'm sure he'd be all in. Would he use it on commercial recordings when he became a professional producer actually cutting records? Who knows...if it served a song he was working on, perhaps so. But if the teenage Brian was trying to recreate the voices and sounds of the Four Freshmen using the high tech recording device of its day, why wouldn't it make sense that he would experiment with similar technology if it existed.

[So there's a point where it comes back around to that Simpsons fireplace gag. Why are we listening to this stuff? Is it worth listening to real stuff instead?I don't think tribute bands and things of that ilk are particularly comparable. It may be comparable in the overarching question of "Should I burn time listening to this when I can listen to the real/original thing?" But tribute bands serve a function of presenting live music. Nobody is trying to make me think that's John Lennon on stage singing in that Beatles tribute band. These AI vocal tracks seem to at least be *striving* to actually sound like the real deal. And what ends up happening is that they mostly sound awful, and the few well-done ones sound 75% towards sounding 75% like the real thing they're trying to sound like.]

As far as where the criticisms of AI came from, I think that's a pretty complicated question.

Certainly, many people take a very staunch zero tolerance attitude towards it because it involves a machine doing some (or most or nearly all) of the work rather than a human with a brain and a soul. There is also the issue of lost jobs in certain sectors.

To me, while those are all pertinent issues as well, one of my main issues is that the the seeming fundamental premise of these AI vocals, the ones that are presented to people, is that they actually sound like the thing they're trying to make it sound like. And I don't think it does. I've probably likened it in the past to those "Magic Eye" posters from the 90s. Some people hear it, some don't. Some people don't have a good enough ear (I guess, and I know this can unavoidably sound kind of snobbish) to hear the nuances that *don't* sound accurate. Or, I guess, don't care?

Now, some might argue that they acknowledge it doesn't sound "just like" the real deal. Okay, so then what are we doing here? The answer is, on one level, harmless tinkering for one's amusement.

So there's a point where it comes back around to that Simpsons fireplace gag. Why are we listening to this stuff? Is it worth listening to real stuff instead?

I don't think tribute bands and things of that ilk are particularly comparable. It may be comparable in the overarching question of "Should I burn time listening to this when I can listen to the real/original thing?" But tribute bands serve a function of presenting live music. Nobody is trying to make me think that's John Lennon on stage singing in that Beatles tribute band.

These AI vocal tracks seem to at least be *striving* to actually sound like the real deal. And what ends up happening is that they mostly sound awful, and the few well-done ones sound 75% towards sounding 75% like the real thing they're trying to sound like.

The lines in bold:

The same things could be said about tribute bands, almost point by point, which is why I raised that comparison. First, you can't judge every example by citing the worst examples of anything. There are restaurants that cook an amazing burger, and others that are pure crap: That doesn't mean all burgers are mostly awful. It's the same with AI creators and live tribute/cover bands, there are total hacks and there are amazing acts out there, they shouldn't all be judged on a bell curve or lowest common denominator by nature of the media or fields in which they choose to make their music.

I'd argue that the tribute bands are doing exactly the same thing you've described in striving to sound like the real deal, and the 75% description is the same description as can be applied to the live tribute bands. I've worked with some through the years, and can say that they are absolutely trying to sound like the bands they're paying tribute to, and in some cases especially with the larger and bigger-budget touring acts, are trying to also look and dress like the original acts, and are even playing the exact instruments the original players used to further put across the fantasy to the audience. They're very dedicated to presenting an authentic look and sound to their audiences.

So they're out there trying to copy the originals and create a fantasy live sound and look, never claiming to be anything but a band paying tribute to another legendary band...and I'd say AI creators are doing the same thing only from the studio versus live.

I guess some people are telling those fans who buy tickets to tribute shows that it's better to stay home and watch or listen to live recordings of that original band, but I doubt that affects the decisions of neither those fans nor the tribute musicians themselves because they're doing something that people enjoy and providing some escapism and fantasy for all involved.

Are all tribute bands proficient or even "good"? Of course not. Are all AI creators and creations proficient or "good"? Of course not. But every burger you get at a restaurant isn't always "good" either. The market and audiences weed them out.

I think the tribute band's version of "John Lennon" or Freddie Mercury is absolutely, 100% trying his best to sound and/or look like John Lennon or Freddie. The difference is they're using analog methods and technology to do so while the AI creators are using modern digital technology to do the same thing. I see a direct connection between the two, the only difference is the medium and technologies being used to accomplish what amounts to the same goal: Create a fantasy experience for fans who want to experience something that is physically and scientifically impossible in the real world.

Great article, I've been following Brian Kehew's efforts online for years and it's really great to see such efforts being made to preserve these recordings and media. Unfortunately the issue of how much of it actually gets into the public sphere via releases or accessibility where interested fans can actually hear this stuff is still a point of separation that often never gets fixed. How many stories are there of finding a certain "lost" recording or reel, hearing reports of that find, then never being able to hear or access it due to various legal, financial, or other issues. Then you have people castigating fans for being entitled or greedy for asking about such things.

It kind of soured me on a lot of it, but there's always hope.

More hope for me has been generated in recent years surrounding "lost" video, especially from the late 60's and early 70's. There are some potentially amazing developments in that area where previously lost media may actually exist on unlikely sources which have collected dust for years outside the normal channels, and perhaps these will finally come out and be made available to view in my lifetime. That's very exciting.