The Smiley Smile Message Board

From Dae Lims, a finished Old Man River and a wonderful Bacharach medley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alarQ8TI8zw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RIX1pGkFq8

Far beyond incredible!! Thanks for posting!!    :pirate :rock :h5 :love :happydance :kiss :woot :woot :woot

Really, really nice! Thanks for posting!

This reminds me too that Brian (and Al etc) added Old Man River to their live show for a random year or so. I had forgotten all about that.

Snagged 'em, Joel--thanks so much for bringing these to our attention.  :king

Will be keeping an eye on Dae Lims for possible future developments...

LOL that's pretty good, though I can't help but wonder if the first one sounds just a wee bit too polished?

Who would that be singing in the 2nd one - Carl?

A new Dae Lims video, it really IMO captures Brian's early voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7cDB80jkSM

That guy is mad talented.  Pretty sure he used to go by the name "Smile A.D." which is "Dae Lims" spelled backwards.   :)

The latest...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcg5FoQOTzY

That ones off the mark. Those Hawaii '67 recordings are laid back and trippy and that AI vocal interpretation just sounds too studio driven. Totally missing 'the vibe'.

Can't wait for some talented fellow to give us some completed Smile tracks with this technology.

For your consideration...Dae Lims' Smile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7W_2JS12CY

I don't really get the ethos of sharing this stuff exclusively via youtube, which puts a hard ceiling on the audio quality/bitrate and also basically guarantees that interested copyrightholders will see it and have absolutely no trouble getting it removed.  The point of flying under the radar is you get to keep flying that way.

Thanks for the link, Joel! There's a lot of great stuff in this version (I hesitate to use the word "mix") of Smile. If I was one to still make Smile fan edits I'd definitely be copping some of this marvelous stuff.

I think it depends on what the person posting it wants to get out of it. If they want the widest audience possible, and/or get off on the "likes" and the "views" and plaudits, then being up for a little while on YouTube before getting pulled (or pulling it themselves) gets it to far more people than going on a message board and posting a file link.

From what I can tell, that channel looks like it learned early on that stuff gets pulled, so I'm guessing they put stuff up and then pull it down before it gets a copyright strike. I don't check on this stuff on a regular basis, so I'm not sure.

I don't think it's possible for this stuff to particularly "fly under the radar" at this point.

If you share files that aren't exclusively welded to a single corporate platform then those files can continue be shared among other human beings with similar interests, almost indefinitely, entirely free of algorithms or tracking metrics!

All this being said I know the audio can and has been ripped from youtube and shared on more under the radar channels already, it's just a silly barrier for people to have to go around

https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Dae+Lims%22

In the category of something that should have happened but didn't and now it "has," Dae Lims presents AI Frank Sinatra's soulful performance of Still I Dream Of It...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC1Z82hM0bc

Agreed.  I hope that Dae Lims shares his stuff on other formats where you can download his stuff at a higher quality than what YouTube offers.  He used to be active on SoundCloud years ago; perhaps he could put his stuff out on there...?

As a Sinatra fan, I have to say hearing that is stunning, uplifting, and sad at the same time. Stunning because I had always wanted to hear Sinatra's voice on that track, and short of hiring a Sinatra impersonator to cut a lead vocal over the backing track, AI has made that hypothetical session possible. This track sounds like Sinatra's output in the 70's, it would have fit on any of that era's releases. The backing arrangement combined with Sinatra's vocal timbre (or the approximation of it) fits so well. Uplifting for the same reasons, just being able to hear an approximate version of what never happened but was imagined for a long time. Sad because the original pairing never happened, even though according to a Brian interview there was a meeting with Sinatra scheduled to discuss him recording this song and potentially others too. I think if that happened it would have been a terrific fit and the song could have gone into Sinatra's songbook and live shows. That will always be the sadness of the whole thing.

If Sid Mark were still alive, and you could have sent it to him, I'm sure he would have loved this track and perhaps even played it on his show. There's a difference between the hack AI that has Frank singing Nirvana, and AI Frank actually singing a song that was written and arranged with his voice in mind but sadly never got recorded.

Great work.

Just adding one minor nit-pick: The only part of the track that didn't fit the Sinatra sound was the ad-libbing at the end. Sinatra most likely would not have sung "yeah yeah yeah" and the other syllables, instead he would more likely have hummed a part of the melody in the outro or something similar, especially at this point in his career and based on hearing a ton of Frank's work from the 70's and 80's both live and studio. Again that's just pointing out the one element that stood out as something not characteristic of Frank's vocal style. Other than that, stunning work.

It sounds like the vocal is being run through Brian’s lead vocal track (or Brian’s lead vocal is somehow a component), because that vocal has a weird mix of Brian’s voice and the fake Sinatra voice.

I’m not a Sinatra aficionado, so I’m certainly not as trained on his voice as the BBs, Beatles, etc., but this sounds pretty par for the course compared to the other tracks. It’s certainly more workshopped than most of the fake AI vocals on YouTube. But it doesn’t sound like the real thing either, to me.

Would there be value in having like a Sinatra impersonator sing the song to hear kind of what it would sound like had he recorded it? Maybe? So I guess this AI vocal is kind of like that.

Listening to Brian’s vocals (which are quite affecting and poignant) and then a fake Sinatra, I think the answer as to who should have sang the song is pretty obvious: Carl Wilson.

But hey, I’m someone who probably enjoys Brian’s demos of “Still I Dream of It” and “It’s Over Now” more than the studio versions. Not a super huge fan of that 70s lounge band sound.

It could be worse. See: Gary Usher’s mid-80s lyrical rewrite of “Still I Dream of It.”

Where can the Usher lyrics be seen?

My sentiments exactly!! I have always wondered "what if" with this song, and now I'm hearing Frank sing this song (yes I realize it's not actually him). I saw this pop up in my YouTube feed last night and I've played it a lot since then. What a crazy time to be alive - just 1-2 years ago I'd never think this was remotely possible.

Great work, again SMiLE AD.

Are you listning to the same track posted above or Mike Leroy's? if the latter, you're right. If the Dae Lim's version is what you're referencing I think you may be hearing something that is not there. This was definitely not modeled on Brian's original vocal. Phrasing is completely different.

Funny enough, mine was me singing as well. Guess I'm a bit too much of a Brian fan and not enough Sinatra!  :lol

Well, that video was just a little joke to show I'm still working on stuff... can't wait till you guys see what I'm cooking up next...

I believe they're reprinted in McParland's Gary Usher/Brian book. I have the 2013 edition. Not sure which older variations have them.

I could swear somebody online at some point posted them as well. A literaly 5-second search I just did didn't turn anything up, but they might be out there on a board/post somewhere.

Love “I wanna be around” so much. Great work here. I think eventually Smile’s legacy will be just as it began: incomplete. Due to the ability to continue tinkering with it so much. I know for a fact there is still more Smile stuff in the vault. Will we get it? Don’t know.

I’m hoping for some Dennis AI to be applied to You’re so Good to Me (a song he originally was going to sing). Or I just wasn’t made for these times (a song he may have had a pass at and could still be present vocally). But most importantly: a day in the life of a tree. The first two would require a different Dennis vocal than Tree, however.

I really want to hear 1971 Brian singing A Day in the Life of a Tree. Salivatingly so.  :lol

Great idea!

You know for a fact there is more SMiLE stuff in the vault.... how do you know... and how much !...?

.?

Lots of possibilities of the AI as people point out. Personally I'd love to see both Dennis and Carl lead takes on Holy Man (with beach boys harmonies added, of course). Let's see what Dae Lims comes up with next!

An "early" version of Our Sweet Love. Very sweet...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVunCBgLnc

Thanks, Joel. Proof here that someone with massive technical skills and a deep affinity/ability for recapturing the nuances with the Beach Boys' vocal blend can create a "fake" that fully honors the original creators. That "you and me/our happy home" round is nothing short of mind-blowing...I had "tears in the afternoon" listening to this a second, third, fourth time.

Hats off to Dae Lims!  :love

Fresh off the presses, the Beach Boys do Little Anthony and the Imperials...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whqDJv6y76Y

Another fantastic one!!

The guys 'do" the Explorers Club.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAIQiF-a6k

Finally, a new Dae Lims creation. A gorgeous "1966" version of Let's Put Our Hearts Together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6OFV3QwWKw

From the "vaults." Dae Lims unearthed 1960s version of She's Got Rhythm, in mono and with crackles straight from the 45! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUgaztzcizk

First one I've not been overly thrilled about. The quality is great - it's just that Brian's vocal sounds too polished. The track kinda sounds like it would fit perfectly on an early 2000's arthritis prescription medicine commercial. Reminds me of AGD's comment (I forget it he said it or if he heard it from somewhere else) about Soulful Old Man Sunshine sounding like it was made for a shampoo/conditioner commercial haha.

Whereas the MIU version is great because it doesn't sound polished...while Brian is trying to sound like his younger self, he still sounds gruff - has sort of a 'Drip Drop', 'Shortenin Bread' vibe that really makes the corniness of the composition work.

Just my two cents, but as always, smile AD does a fantastic job creating/mixing!

I have thoroughly enjoyed all of these, especially the most recent two from Dae Lims.  Even aside from the cool AI component, they are excellent and well-done recordings.

One commenter at YouTube felt the falsetto was too shrill, which I suppose is the (near) opposite of polished. To me it sounds like an up-tempo variant of the "Let Him Run Wild" chorus.

Agree that the backing track is a bit too faithful to the original, whereas something more in the interstice between SD/SN production and PS would be in order.


Let's face it, the original is not a great track. It's Brian trying to leverage something from the 15BO production style, but being a bit lazy and paint-by-numbers a la "It's OK" and trying to kinda "cheat" his way to an updated "old style" hit. Dae Lims gets the energy into Brian's lead, which takes that part of the song back into a liminal space more akin to between ASL and TODAY!, but Mike's part actually sounds as though it were lifted verbatim off the MIU version, which is a bit jarring.

But all of this is merely quibbling...this is so catchy and joyous that it reminds us that the band's pre-PS material was the apotheosis of (lost) 60s innocence, and anyone who can channel it as masterfully as Dae Lims should be bowed down to reflexively, repetitively, reverentially.

Now, if he wants to try to rework some selected tracks from PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE for a less blemished vocal sound from Dennis...that could be pretty awesome as well.

The latest, and a very nice one, young Brian and the Beach Boys sing Gershwin!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1PHUL9uzLc

Oh man that's awesome!

Is that not AI Carl singing lead?

Sounds like either, come to think of it. Maybe it's a Carl-Brian AI blend.

Some tasteful moments from AI Al, AI Carl, and AI Brian. Bravo again.

It's  Carl singing lead, Al singing "the pain in painting " and an early 70s Brian singing " the muse in music"

Dae Lims definitely deserves credit for putting all this overblown AI technology to creative use producing most rewarding results.  I'm still not entirely clear how he utilizes the tech though.  Is he singing the vocals himself and then running his voice through an AI genorator to change his voice to whomever he wants?  If that's the case then you have to really appreciate his skill.  Because I'm assuming you have to adopt the phrasing and tonality of the desired singer's voice to really pull off sounding like them.  In this most recent offering you can really pick out "Carl" and "Al" in the appropriate places.

The Dae Lims AI stuff is incredible!  It would be great if he could use AI to "fix" the vocals in various BW recordings:

- Wilson/Paley tracks like Elbow '63 ("we made music ..."), Proud Mary, Slightly American Music + Going Home

- Intro to the Hallmark version of The Spirit of Rock N Roll

- How Could We Still Be Dancing ("dance the night away, dance the night away" and "hey everybody")

- Fairy Tale

I’m not sure if he does a breakdown of every track he works on, but he has streamed hour+ long breakdowns on YouTube where he goes into great detail about how he puts these together. Here is the one for the Like I Love in You:
https://www.youtube.com/live/N4EZSHqPVwQ?si=0hPO7cTuVajOo7yy  (https://www.youtube.com/live/N4EZSHqPVwQ?si=0hPO7cTuVajOo7yy)

Speaking of which, that’s one of my favorite BW solo tracks - and this latest AI track is phenomenal!! Couldn’t have asked for a better mix.

That is exactly what he is doing, and its incredible!

What program is he using?

99% sure its RVC, he trains his models himself (admittedly not the hardest part), and then runs it all on either Google Collab or locally. The arrangements and performances are all his... which is the wild part!

I'm struggling with that last part, I use an AI model of a pretty famous contemporary artist on a new song I wrote... his voice and style were always the artistic vision... can't decide if the vision outweighs my concerns and morals... even if I never make any money

Dae Lims presents AI Dennis Wilson singing Holy Man, with special guests the AI Beach Boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jnPAXYUQnM

Holy wow. Amazing.

Is amazing, isn't it.

That is a sublime recording, I thought the Taylor Hawkins version was as good as I'd hear that song in a new version and then this dropped. If you played that for the average Beach Boys fan with some knowledge of the 70's output, I'd bet they wouldn't know it was a new AI creation and would think it was an original band recording from the 70's.

Speaking of amazing, at least in my opinion, this isn't the Beach Boys, but AI Elvis Presley completing a song, while Reality Elvis sang only one line before laughing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHiGC3fDmPI
Here's the reality version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMcBD4ScvMU

I don’t want to gush about this, but when I listen to this it feels like the first time I heard some of my favorite beach boys tracks. Anyone else feel this way?

And yet it’s fake…And I don’t really care. This hits me right where stereo ‘Don’t Worry Baby’ hits me. That coda made my jaw drop to the floor.

Dae Lims, you’re really doing something special here. With all the terrible things AI can be used for, you’re creating something so beautiful - in the true spirit of the band itself.

The more I listen to AI Holy Man, the more onions I peel.

Yes I get that feeling too. It's like hearing a new "official" track when the quality is as superior as this specific track, along with the Smile tracks.  Ultimately music as an art form is directly connected to the imagination, and hearing music triggers sensory responses including the ability to visualize something as you're listening. I mention that because it isn't too much of a stretch for those open to doing so  to imagine and visualize this track as having been done by the original band members. And as I wrote above, I think if you played this track for casual Beach Boys fans without telling them it was a modern recording using AI, they would possibly have a hard time distinguishing it from an original band recording. And that element of quality and attention to detail in this specific track is why I think it hits me in a similar way as hearing a new "original".

I can understand the concerns about AI technology in music, and the potential abuses and outright misuse of the technology. But if a fan does work like this who clearly knows the music on a level beyond collecting records and being a fan, and can import the precise musical details into the work and be musically and sonically accurate in doing so, it's a work of art unto itself. If a piece of music touches a listener in a positive way, I'd ask those critical of using AI for this type of work to consider it no different from an artist covering or paying tribute to another artist's existing works of art.

I'm not sure if it's historically accurate to cite this as one of the benchmark moments in this "new art form", but I'd have to give some credit to the three surviving Beatles when they took the unfinished Lennon demos for Anthology and started the project with the mindset of Lennon giving them the demos and saying here's some new songs I worked on, I'm going on holiday, go ahead and finish them up. It freed up a lot of the trepidation they may have had in finishing work that a deceased bandmate had left unfinished, and I see that same mindset going toward opening the minds of some of the critics of projects like this with the Dennis track and allowing the end result of the music to speak for itself, and whether or not it resonates with listeners.

It's really a remarkable track. On some level it feels like a peek into a reality where Dennis was able to fully use the Beach Boys to execute his musical vision the way Brian did.

Well, this is one I've been wanting: A "completed " 1965 Sandy She Needs Me from Dae Lims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwm2eHEXz70

“Holy Man” - Fantastic! Something I’ve dreamed of hearing!

Beautifully done!

While I personally dig most of the content Dae Lims has presented us, I have to admit that this whole AI thing is a double-edged sword. Although I can totally appreciate Dae Lims's talents and creative use of the technology, this is not the "real" deal.  This kind of technology can produce all sorts of chaos and problems if not managed responsibly.  That said, I can still enjoy these creations as "fan art" that serves as a curious "what if" of sorts.

One of the YouTube posters on "The Like in I Love You" expresses perfectly the emotions that I think so many of us are feeling when we hear Dae Lims channel the magic that ran through this band in so many ways, over so many years, despite all of the "shackles that were binding them down." The innocence and idealism of the band was unique during its original glorious run, and continued to evolve as Dennis and Carl took over much of the oversight for the band after Brian's emotional issues took hold after the Friends LP tanked. Dae Lims has a knack at capturing that feeling in his remarkable affinity for vocal and instrumental textures that is simply uncanny, and it seems to be getting more and more masterful as he proceeds with making versions of songs that so many of us had hoped might have come into existence save for those "shackles."

Here's the quote: "Dae Lims has become the same feeling of excitement I had as a boy going to a record store to find great new songs.  Going to this channel I'm hoping for songs, like all of his so far, that creates exactly that same feeling now."

He's permitting us to set aside all of the anguish and disappointment and frustration that has unavoidably filtered into our reckoning with the band's career, and exist in a wondrous liminal state where it's 1965 again, no matter what actual "year" he is targeting for these ideal reconstructions. We've been morphed into a world where the band can do no wrong, where it's able to play to its strengths at all times. They are not all 100% perfect, of course, but they are so good that one often just can't believe what they're hearing. AI as a force in the world is undeniably problematic, but not in the hands of someone with so much respect and love for the original band as Dae Lims clearly possesses--along with the technical chops to make recordings that channel directly into the very human "feel" of the group.

It is beyond exhilarating, and I frankly never expected that any of us would experience anything remotely like it. Like so many of you, I can't hardly wait for more--MORE...MORE!!  :woot

Dae Lims just dropped a new one:   https://youtu.be/d59D_rYkYM8?si=TYFkr9BU-3aORVW6

Also is anyone here in contact with him?   UMG have now taken down all of his Beatles covers.

Just wanted someone to let him know there is an awesome Beatles community here:  https://forum.beatlegdb.com/
They have a dedicated thread for AI covers.

That would be a good alternative to youtube.

Yeah, was just about to post this. Fun!

On the forum where they pat themselves on the back daily for their supposed positivity and inclusion, Dae Lims is getting completely shellacked for his work there.

Kinda blows my mind that a lot of people can't see the talent/time it takes to make these tracks - nor see anything remotely positive about it. Or see the imagination behind creating these harmonies, etc.. I mean I don't think that everyone has to like this stuff, and there have been tracks I haven't liked, but it's kinda crazy seeing the dogpile of hate.

People have made Smile mixes for how long now? People have been using Brian Wilson's very own work/voice to create their own fantasy album(s) for how many decades now? I know this is a whole other universe of technology/creativity, but at its heart it is the same thing: a fan trying to create something that never was.

As Guitarfool said above: But if a fan does work like this who clearly knows the music on a level beyond collecting records and being a fan, and can import the precise musical details into the work and be musically and sonically accurate in doing so, it's a work of art unto itself.

Yeah I know it can get prickly over there, but at least they have an ai thread, so the people that hate that type of content can ignore it.
It's ironic cause most of the fan mixes there have used ai tools to demix/re-balance, and people are fine with that.
I think we need to get past using the work 'ai' as a blanket term for any new audio tech.

Hats off to Dae Lims, the tunes he is doing are phenomenal and fascinating.

Like most people I am terribly afraid of AI for so many reasons, but that doesn't mean I can't compartmentalize part of my brain and completely enjoy this for what it is.

It's essentially somewhere between a cover version and BBs music from an alternate future universe.

It's a rather indescribable experience listening to these songs. But it's very very cool. To me there's only any moral and ethical quandary if he is trying to pass them off as the real thing, or anything like that. I see/hear nothing of the sort here so I have no problem enjoying this alternate version of reality.

 I'm very grateful to listen to them and I greatly appreciate the work that went into them. Bravo.

But undeniably this is uncharted territory for all people. I had a long in person discussion with a friend of mine yesterday who is a fellow superfan of this band, but he has a problem getting emotional enjoyment out of these types of AI versions. I find that fascinating, and understandable, and honestly somebody should write a thesis or a book about this new phenomenon. Different strokes for different folks.

I get an uncanny valley repulsion when I see a humanoid robot, but for some reason these versions don't give me those same negative vibes at all.

This is interesting and it is clear that people react differently to these sorts of things. I have no difficulty at all connecting emotionally with these works (when the models and application of them are as good as Daelims manages), and actually find that listening to something like the AI Holy Man, or Ol' Man River / Are You There to be incredibly emotional experiences.  I'm also someone who gets nothing whatsoever from a poorly executed AI cover, or a fan-completed mix etc. I can't even enjoy the 'updated' You're Still a Mystery with Brian's later vocal overdub, because it sounds inauthentic to me (nothing at all logical about these feelings).

I agree that when it's transparent and not intended for monetary gain from someone else's voice, I don't have a problem with it, but there are potentially huge problems down the line if the legal and ethical boundaries aren't established firmly sometime soon. Imagine a young talented singer signing a contract early on in their career that (unknowingly) gives away the rights to an AI version of their voice? Artist is then dropped a little later but the record company can churn out tracks with their voice at will (a modern day version of the Spector / He's a Rebel scenario).

Youtube fan covers/edits are different territory, but there are unethical examples on their already. Daelims has been more than transparent and is clear that he does what he enjoys doing, is very respectful of the material, usually do a high level of technical skill, this stuff can really work. It means that the vocal can contain emotion in the delivery as well as sound very close (sometimes indistinguishably so) to a contemporaneous take by the actual artist. I can't not be moved when hearing AI Dennis sing Holy Man with the rest of the boys filling out the sound via AI - it sounds incredible and goes much further in demonstrating what Dennis might have done with it had he been able to complete it than the backing track does, or the Taylor Hawkins track does. On that point, if it's ok to have a Taylor Hawkins vocal version released to showcase the song, is it worse to have Dennis' own voice on it, reconstructed carefully and respectfully via AI to do the same job?

I think some of the key issues in this debate are found in these two quotes. I am admittedly a vintage audio type of person, I prefer the sounds created on older technology. Having said that, hearing some of the AI creations posted and linked on this forum have changed my mind regarding the use of AI technology in creating these tracks, due in large part to the superior quality and the obvious respect and attention to detail that went into making them.

This could get long, because to cover all the aspects and issues would perhaps be a book-length exploration. All I want to do is express some of my own opinions, shine light on some historical details and parallels, and perhaps open some minds and opinions for discussion and consideration.


Point 1, and perhaps the more important issue to consider, is that all audio recording of music since roughly the late 1940's is an illusion, an alternate version of reality. As soon as pioneers like Les Paul started to work with magnetic tape, which led to multitrack recording, and other pioneers like Bill Putnam started to create technology to electronically process audio signals and create unnatural sounds and effects on recordings, the doors were kicked wide open. Recorded audio became an illusion, and the process of recording musical performances became a process of creating those illusions.

Previous to these developments, a recording was essentially capturing a live performance on media to be reproduced and sold and/or broadcast. Whatever the musicians did in whatever room they performed was recorded as it happened, as if the listener were in that room with them. The only editing that was done would have been doing multiple takes of that continuous live performance in order to get the "keeper" take.

When Les Paul came along with his "New Sound" or what they used to call "Sound On Sound", most times he had only himself or he and Mary Ford playing and stacking all the tracks. Instead of hiring 5 vocalists, along with a drummer, bassist, and perhaps 10 guitarists to cut a "live" take, we instead got 12 Les Pauls and 5 Mary Fords stacking sounds atop each other, track after track, to create an ensemble recording out of two people's musical performances.

That is pure illusion, pure alternate reality. It didn't exist prior to 1947 or so in the popular music realm, and that technique forever changed music. At the time, it was also called a gimmick, a fad, a false reality, etc by musical purists. They wanted to capture a full group as it performed live, whether it be classical, jazz, country...and some still do in 2024. But the illusion created by new technology, specifically magnetic tape and multitrack recording machines moved popular music miles ahead of where it would have been.

And the issue of magnetic tape: Editing became possible. If you had a group, or even a single spoken word artist, who had recorded 10 takes of a song, but none of those takes was "the one", a skillful engineer with a razor blade, a cutting block, and adhesive tape could patch together the best segments from those 10 takes and create a continuous recording which the majority of listeners would be fooled into thinking was a single live continuous take. Again, technology created a false reality, an alternate reality, but that technology allowed the creators to make records which were more perfect than would be humanly possible.

Tape editing became not only a skill but an art form. Instead of doing a straight cut, engineers could cut and splice angles to create seamless crossfades and deliberate effects. Instead of just connecting the first minute of take 2 with the last two minutes of take 7, they could razor-blade individual tracks in and out of the performance. It was used by experimental artists but probably brought to the mainstream by way of Good Vibrations, where the tape editing became part of the performance itself and created a #1 hit record. It wasn't used as a gimmick or a comedy prop, but rather played an integral role in the performance captured on the recording. Add to that the ability to loop tapes continuously, which was probably codified in popular music by The Beatles and Tomorrow Never Knows, and seen through into the 70's when the Bee Gees unknowingly created the robotic, precise nature of dance music by using the same 2-bar drum loop on 3 smash hit disco singles in the mid-70's because their drummer had to leave the sessions due to a family emergency and they didn't want to halt work on the tracks.

I could go on, and move into digital sequencing, digital recording, DAW's, and all that, but I think those gaps can be filled into the story.

It's an illusion, it's creating alternate reality from the point where a musician performs a passage of music and that recording gets distributed to and heard by listeners.

As such, how is the AI technology in the timeline of recording technology development any different than those previous developments? People who I guess were considered "purists" also criticized Les Paul's recordings, Bill Putnam's effects, the techniques of editing tapes in general, and a whole host of other developments through the years. Claims that it was not natural, it wasn't pure, it would create "lazy" musicians or put musicians out of work, it wasn't reality...Again, consider that recording music and distributing it to listeners in a multitude of formats is in itself creating an alternate reality and an aural illusion.

It's all in how the technology is used, and what kind of art is created with the technology. Artists use tools to create a work: If you give different artists those same tools and turn them loose, isn't it foolish to assume each of those artists will create some form of "high art" with them? It's like giving a hammer, nails, and wood to 10 people and expecting all 10 to create something valid or useful with those materials. One of those 10 might decide to smash the foot of another with the hammer, Three Stooges-style, to get a laugh...how can that be controlled other than someone saying not to do it? And if their goal was to create a comedy skit, to get laughs at the expense of someone else's foot, isn't that as comedy a valid use of the tools as well?

So much to digest, I've already gone too far. But consider AI as used to create these tracks is only another tool in the development of recorded sound. If people choose to make high art, or create pure crap, it's not the technology creating the end result as long as a human is inputting the data and parameters into the AI generators. And if people like one use of it, but not another use of the same technology, that's their own hang-ups and tastes.

Now if AI turns into HAL, that's another story.  :smokin

This is tricky because of all the reasons GF laid out above. Modern recording technology has been proudly inauthentic since before most of us were born. And what’s going on with most of these tracks is the equivalent of a vocal effect — an AI filter that makes someone sound like a Beach Boy or Beatle or whatever.

I find the Holy Man and Desert Drive videos remarkable, simply because they allow us to imagine something that never happened. Dennis and Mike never sang those songs. Indeed, the tracks didn’t event have vocal overdubs.

I would be much more cautious when it comes to some folks’ suggestions that he “fix” tracks that have already been completed and released. Much of the Paley material, for instance, features somewhat wonky BW vocal performances, but I don’t want to hear those songs with a fake 1960s Brian belting them out. Seems tacky and disrespectful and ignores the point of the material, which is that it was recorded by an older Brian.

Smile, of course, has been fan edited so many times that I don’t give a fig anymore.

Again, though, I would make a distinction between tracks that give us something we never had before and those that try to improve or fix something that doesn’t need improving or fixing. (I do wonder, however, which artist will be the first to release an official album featuring an AI version of their younger voice singing the tunes. It’s coming.)

Really great points here, and generally I agree. If an artist's intention is a specific sound, and they work hard to achieve and broadcast it... what truly makes this any different? The only aspect that is tricky in my book is legal, in which case we'll have to see.

Sampling was also a tricky subject. It allowed a lot of artists who otherwise would never have had the chance to make such productions to achieve a sound they dreamed to create.

GF - I agree completely that so much of whether I can enjoy/accept recordings like these are due to the superior quality of the workmanship that went into them, and Dae Lims IMO is killing it in that department.

I guess a primary issue that people can have with these is the insertion of musical ideas from another person who is not the actual artist...Which I totally get why that bugs some people.

But that said, if the music is good, the music is good, and I'm not trying to pretend it's anything else than what it actually is.
As it sounds really cool, I'm not going to force myself not to like it simply because it's not an actual recording of Brian Wilson's voice, despite sounding like him very much.

I'm reminded of officially released modern creations such as the 2012 version of Sail Plane Song.

I thought that was a really interesting experiment and I'm glad it exists and it was released.
It's not trying to take the place of anything else, it's just a well executed alternate reality that perhaps shows what the track might've sounded like if Brian had added more production back in the 1960s.

Not everybody digs it, but count me in as one of the people who does.

 These AI creations are somewhat similar in my book. It's new artistic ideas being put into an old song, but if it's done well that's all that matters to me. I'm not going to enjoy it as much as Pet Sounds and other actual original recordings by the band, but then it's not a contest.

I'm just glad that "new" material by this band is being carved out in one way or another.

Oh God, this is gorgeous, and especially poignant in light of Melinda's passing, it's basically a memorial... Dae Lims' Love and Mercy with young and progressively older Brian and the Beach Boys. I think there are some onions I'll go peel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HtyTW-qUSg
Update: Oh crap, it's just been removed. Dae Lims was getting a lot of kudos, but also grief from some posters for being disrespectful, which puzzles me. The video began with early-to-mid 1960s Brian, switched to late 1960s-early 1970s, then to mid-to-late 1970s with some Love You synth thrown in, back to early 1960s and then current Brian.

Did anyone rip the audio? I was going to (I had a feeling) but decided to answer nature’s call first.

It was beautiful.

I'd love to hear this, as well, hoping someone got it.

I've been looking for alternates on YouTube, nothing yet.

Dae Lims strikes again!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1kTbEL7TV0

This is fantastic!  This is the first "Live" AI I've heard and I totally would believe it!

Daelims is now a member of the board here, and I hope the L&M track is made available again in some way, I missed it before it was removed. Hopefully there is an explanation why it got taken down.

He had a live listen just after he took it down. He said it upset people that he posted it so soon after it was announced that Melinda passed away and some thought it was not in good taste (I thought it was a wonderful tribute). So he voluntarilly took it down.

The technology has evolved in the last few months pretty quick too.

Just 30 min ago I pasted a youtube link of Sail on Sailor to one of the online ai programs and got this Dennis Wilson lead on Sail on sailor as a result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HYJqtrieIw

The only thing I provided was isolated tracks of Dennis Wilson vox. Mostly from POB, to train the voice.
No editing apart from an image for youtube to be able to upload.

It's not great, but I was pretty impressed that the software had the capability to fade between the ai Dennis (from Blondie's vox) to the harmonies without any user input.

Not bad, not bad at all, Waves! It's of course more of a curiosity than anything else, but given all the lore about SoS, it's a welcome footnote to hear something semi-credible for what we know to be a lost first take. Dennis' voice really does seem quite suitable to the song, not to take anything away from Blondie.

Imagining what it could sound like with the sophisticated and artistic techniques employed by Dae Lims does send a little shiver through the spine, though, doesn't it?  :3d

I think "Holy Man" by Dae Lims is simply sublime, just as his SMiLE.
I understand some perplexities, as I myself am not sure how to classify these musical gems. The (masterful) using of AI technology is not even the main "issue", imho. Fact is, they are great works of art by Dae Lims, based directly on unfinished great works by Brian, Dennis and the Beach Boys, and their unique voices. They are a new, never seen before thing.
But, luckily, nobody is forcing me to classify them. The joy of listening to unexpected, beautiful BB-related stuff is enough.
And Dae Lims, sir, you deserve the greatest praises possible. :thewilsons

Imho this is a stellar post, both for the content and the quality of the writing. A difficult subject made crystal clear. Thanks a lot for this, Craig.

The self-styled positivity & inclusion forum shows the eternal pointlessness of self-praise.

A thing I like particularly about this "Holy Man": how Dae Lims uses here a more symphonic/operatic kind of production, in the preferred style of Dennis, while in AI SMiLE he uses a lavish enough, but still often intimistic, production, in the preferred style of Brian.

Yes, i hope this era is on Dae Lims to-do list

Hi guys,

Really appreciate all the kind words!

Next up is an AI 1963 live show featuring only songs they never played live. I'm 4 songs in - having a lot of fun with this one.

Stay tuned!

DL

Er... sorry for misspelling your name "Daelims" all the while. Fixed! :)

What a cool idea. Love the stuff you've been doing! Many thanks for sharing!

The work you've been doing has been absolutely mind blowing in the best way. Thank you for all you do! Any way you could share that Love and Mercy directly here with us?

I missed L&M too, but some kind person has been uploading them to archive.org:

https://archive.org/details/dae-lims-archive

I'm not afraid to be gushy here. Words cannot express my adoration of your work.

I want to second this.  I can't stop listening to several of the tracks you've created.  It's like everything you'd ever hoped a song would be... suddenly is.

New Dae Lims just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mnw0lhE1Xo

I doubt even the harshest ai critics would have any problem with this type of mix.
A new stereo mix using ai tools for stem seperation.

It sparkles!

Yeah this largely how I look at these AI creations, specifically the cool stuff Dae Lims has been doing.  No it's not the "real" thing, but it can be appreciated on its own as a fun "what if" presentation.  Of course I can see how problematic these AI creations can be and legal headaches they might present.  But I would be lying if I said I wasn't digging a lot of the work Dae Lims has offered us.  I especially loved his "completed" take on "Walk On By" and his recently deleted "Beatles" version of Paul McCartney's unreleased "Return To Pepperland" was downright fantastic.

One song I’ve always wanted to hear is a young Ronnie Spector singing don’t worry baby. I know she’s covered it in her later years but if there’s anyway Dae Lima could ever muster an AI beach boys version with peak era Ronnie singing the lead well I’d die a happy man

I would slaughter something for a 1964-style “Midnight’s Another Day”

He would likely have to get a female vocalist who can match Ronnie's intonation to pull off such a feat.

I would go for a 1970-71 version, with a vocal and instrumentation that emulate the sadness and starkness of 'Til I Die.

 As interesting as these hypothetical fan creations can be, they are definitely kind of polarizing to some as they aren't truly "authentic".  Personally if I enjoy the creativity behind them (such as Dae Lims' creations) I can comfortably make the distinction between fact and fiction. 

All that said, I think the real meat of how artificial intelligence technology will be most constructively implemented will be in the more subtle nuances of audio editing.  It will probably benefit from making basic mixing, mastering and overall production easier and more efficient.  Using the MAL technology we can finally start expecting to hear proper stereo mixes of songs such as "Good Vibrations" whose multitracks have long gone lost.  Dae Lims himself put out a darn good fan stereo mix  of "The Little Girl I Once Knew" that gives you an idea of what
the technology can do.

The latest from Dae Lims. A complete Honey Get Home, very Wild Honey-style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pXoctCEZkA

No young Brian on old Brian songs. Please.

The old BW songs gain their power from him being, well, old.

To his credit, Dae Lims gets this and has been very careful in his approach. Desert Drive is a full latter day BB version. The Like in I Love You have been given a full band treatment, but it’s not even a BW melody. His L&M toured the history of BW vocal approaches. That’s all amazing and excellent.

But putting a young BW on MAD, for example, or the Paley tracks — it just doesn’t work or make aesthetic sense. The young BW wouldn’t have written or produced those songs.

I would love to hear early 70's Brian singing A Day In The Life Of A Tree.

Agreed, with maybe one exception--I think many folks would like to hear a song like "I'll Bet He's Nice" with a Sunflower-Surf's Up era vocal blend and younger-ish lead vocals. I'm not sure if that would absolutely necessitate a significant reworking of the backing track as well, but it would be interesting to hear regardless...

When I suggested that Dae Lims "fix" some Brian vocals (including on Wilson/Paley material), I meant that I'd love to hear better Brian vocals (not necessarily younger Brian vocals) on those tunes/segments.  For example, in Elbow '63, I'd like to hear on key mid-to-late 90's Brian vocals for the "we made music" section.  I don't need to hear mid-60s Brian vocals. 

Here's one attempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VXi3AXzGrc

Now here's an interesting idea-Caroline No not by Brian Wilson, but by the Beach Boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYpHaG9niRI

Pretty cool. Tastefully done.

I always thought Dennis' "My Love Lives On" needed some BB harmony woven into it.

Thanks, Joel. I appreciated the effort that was made on this, but didn't think that the melody choice on the "please don't tell me if it's true" line quite worked for this, and the tag was lacking what Dae Lims would have provided to give it the memorable finish that many folks were hearing in their heads when they encountered it on Love You. The tag on the original is actually the strongest part of the song, so it really needs to do the same for a "time-travel" verson (IMO, but I think many will agree).

would be nice to hear a stereo version of "Sounds of Free" as that doesn't appear to have one... Dae?

Dae Lims says periodically on his live streams that his AI tracks exist as lossless and are "out there."

I would like to know where "out there" is. If somebody knows, I'd appreciated a DM.

https://archive.org/details/dae-lims-archive

ai is starting to get half-decent at creating full tracks.  Fortunately not good songs, but if Mike finds out about this we're all doomed.

https://app.suno.ai/song/4d1f91ef-4f0e-4052-bb7b-1fee8e5fe8b8

This is crazy (and very funny at the same time ;D). I think we're all about to find out first-hand what a paradigm shift this technology will create in our society. As a graphic designer/videographer, I have been slightly worried about the AI graphic/art advancements that have been introduced in the last year...however, the Sora video generator is the most frightening thing I have witnessed regarding AI. And I can't imagine what will be coming down the pike in the next 5 years in this field.

It blows my mind that a computer chip can create a decent 60s song (I mean, it's clearly not great, but imagine this technology 3 years from now!). I still think that human beings will always crave human created content. But it scary to think that we now live in a world where we can't easily make the distinction between human and AI content - and in 1 decade who knows where we'll be.

What kinda does get me excited for this technology is that I have always wanted to hear a 1960s/Pet-Sounds version of the 'Love You' album...a complete album with wrecking crew instruments/vibes, young sounding band.

Dae Lims are you reading this?

Dear all,

Is there any way to find the Dae Lims Smile in a lossless download? If anyone knows, I'd be grateful. Especially looking for the AI enhanced stereo mix of Cabin Essence.

All the best

A simple search on the Internet Archive will take you there.

https://archive.org/details/DaeLimsSMiLEAI

Amazing, thanks.

S.

Excuse my naivete, but these appear to be lossless versions of his YT videos, not necessarily lossless versions of the actual tracks he produced. Are those not "out there"?

If I felt like there was not enough actual Brian/Beach Boys material to listen to, I dunno, maybe I'd entertain the fake stuff. But geez, I find it hard to believe that all the people breathlessly waiting for the next fake Brian vocal have actually exhausted all of the *real* material out there.

Like, go listen to the Tampa '74 show, or Nassau '79, or "Stevie", or whatever.

I think one of my main issues with the AI stuff is that, in BB "fandom", there are already 87 things that end up being a big clusterf**k of divisive arguing, where some people just "don't get it." Remixes vs original. Autotune arguments. BB politics. The list goes on and on. I'm just over adding another thing to that list.

I feel like the people making this AI stuff don't "get it"; I acknowledge others disagree. And yes, when it's done with very specific purpose in trying to recreate something that could have or should have actually existed (BBs singing on "Look", or whatever) versus "fanfic" music (1965 Brian sings "Orange Crate Art", etc.), I guess that's less egregious on some level.

But there's a point where it's less about the actual new AI thing being created, and more just kind of a weird sense of disappointment that more fans don't "get" why, well, it's kinda missing the point to generate and listen to HOURS of FAKE MUSIC. I don't know how else to say it.

It's like having a loving family and cheating on them with a holographic one. Like, why are you doing it? And, more importantly, what could possibly give you the same enjoyment or feeling as the real thing?

I assume people aren't turning to fake AI music because they've "fallen out of love" with the real stuff. Right?

Yes, some people see it as an interesting little experimental curio. But I think people breathlessly searching out the entire catalog of someone's fake AI stuff in high-rez to catalog it thoroughly certainly seem to be taking it far more seriously than just an interesting quick curio.

In what sense is it “fake music”? It’s most definitely real music, whatever your opinions of it. Particularly the stuff that’s mostly discussed in this thread, which has a skilled musician/producer using their own voice, engineering skills, arrangements and AI technology to create, amend or “finish” music that sounds pretty much exactly like the Beach Boys music that we all love so much.

I can totally see why some people don’t like it or are left feeling cold when hearing it, but it’s really easy to leave it where it is and not listen to it if that’s how people feel about it.

I have a lifelong enthusiasm for Beach Boys music and particularly the vocal sound, so if there’s high quality AI recreations of that then there’s a good chance I’ll enjoy it for what it is. The examples I enjoy most are those that complete something that was left unfinished for whatever reason, giving me the chance to hear a version of what might have been and enjoy it if it’s good. That doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy the original Don’t Worry Baby mix this afternoon, or countless other examples - there really is plenty of time to keep enjoying what was and sampling some fan-created AI stuff too.

Personally, I’m a little less excited at the prospect of hearing “young Brian” sing something he already sang as an older Brian, but I can still enjoy it if it sounds good. There’s quite a lot of examples that I don’t like, where (for example) it’s a pretty rudimentary software-based attempt to replace one vocal with another and they’re often a bit more random in their intended targets, but the good stuff is really good to my ears and I’m just thrilled to have heard what Desert Drive might have sounded like had those 90’s sessions panned out differently.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind here, just giving my perspective as someone who has enjoyed so much of this. It’s real music, whether you agree with the intent or quality of the execution or whatever - it may not be the real Beach Boys as such, but if it sounds very much like them (and not just in vocal sound) I’ll be here listening and enjoying it whatever.

I'm with you, El Molé. Just so long as no one tries to pass this stuff off as "undiscovered material from the vaults," it's all cool and people can listen without "fear of shaming." There is much to marvel at in the work of Dae Lims and others, and it seems particularly appropriate for this technology to be employed on the BB's music, when so many have lamented the limitations of said technology in the sixties, when it might have aided Brian to a significant enough extent that he might have made his way through the SMiLE project after all.

I think most of the folks employing this on BB tracks are head over heels in love with the unique vocal blend of the band, and want to extend some semblance of its peak manifestation into areas of the group's catalogue where its use will give us a chance to have new goosebumps as we "rediscover" things that might have been. As long as that context is explicitly in place and is rigorously adhered to by the creators, my view is that the sky is the limit.

I will say that insofar as the stuff is re-jiggering existing Brian/BB compositions, I suppose we can call it "fake recordings" rather than "fake music."

By fake, I mean the element of the recording that is a computer algorithm processing data. Others can disagree as to whether it's fake, and I'm not trying to be dramatic or hyperbolic. That's just the long and short of it for some people.

And it's "fake" in that it's replicating something for which an actual recording doesn't exist. In that sense, I'd call an impressionist doing it "fake" as well. All sorts of fake things can involve skill and craft.

And again, I was also pointing out that gut feeling I have that people are skipping past legitimate, real recordings in order to listen to the AI stuff. Again, that's anyone's prerogative, and there's no way for me to know what exactly each person has listened to before they delve into AI stuff.

But knowing how much stuff is out there, I suspect a lot of people listening to this AI stuff haven't or don't seek out the million hours of extant actual recordings of the BBs and others that are out there. Again, it starts to get a bit like ignoring your family to play with an AI family at a certain point. To me, anyway.

If we were talking about some amazing artist that recorded one album, died, and left behind no other recordings but tons of manuscripts of songs, that would be a different thing altogether. Although, even then, I'd probably just prefer giving those songs to *another* singer.

It probably should also be mentioned that I, and others, don't really agree that even the best of this AI stuff sounds "pretty much exactly like the Beach Boys music that we all love so much." I tend to find an unavoidable uncanny valley element to it, either in its design or in its actual execution, or both. It still rings pretty similar to me to AI art, where some people thing it looks "amazing!" while ignoring the seven fingers on one hand, the creepy sameness that AI art tends to have, etc. Some people have eyes and ears for this stuff, others don't.

And again, I have to reiterate that there are fifty gazillion hours of actual BB/Brian music to listen to. I have more on my portable music player than I'll ever have time to listen to. Some people would rather listen to actual recordings of the actual people singing the actual songs.

As to the "well, just don't listen to it then" aspect, that's all well and good up to a point, and I haven't even really delved into the long-term implications of AI, because few are equipped to philosophize and prognosticate on that accurately. But when it enters the realm of BB fans/scholar discussion, I just feel it's okay to occasionally weigh in. Believe me, I've mostly left the AI crew alone since it sprung up.

Hey Jude, your “family” analogy seemingly assumes that the only thing people should care about is the “family” or “band” as it relates to their real music and real history.

What is being forgotten/ignored is that many fans are very drawn to the technically creative side of the band. Which means many fans probably appreciate the technically creative side to many other musical creations. So when someone uses both technical and musical expertise to artificially create something related to The Beach Boys, it is only natural that some fans will enjoy listening to those creations.

Listening to those creations is not like ignoring your family. Rather it just is what it is: people who love this band so much that they’ll listen to real or fake versions of The Beach Boys. And again it comes down to what we each enjoy, at a personal level, about the band. Yes, I can listen to 5 hours of Sea of Tunes Pet Sounds Sessions to enjoy both the history and the creative aspect of the music. But maybe I also enjoy hearing and seeing Dae Lims creative take on a Beach Boys tune…it’s not that I want to ignore the real Beach Boys, but it’s that I want to hear something creatively beautiful, regardless of where it comes from. That’s my own musical taste and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Some fans solely enjoy trawling through hundreds of hours of demo tracks and live albums because they are drawn to the real band and the real history, and they have every right to do that. Other people apparently like hearing alternate histories and ideas, and there’s nothing wrong with that either.

And that isn’t to say you shouldn’t speak your opinion about the tracks - but I don’t think those opinions should extend to, borderline shaming, comparisons involving ignoring family, either.

I say this as someone who has almost two decades experience shaming people who like the Summer in Paradise album. So take all this with a grain of salt ;D

Yeah, I'm not shaming anybody. I'm more like imploring, I guess? And lamenting? A bit of "wtf?" I guess? People are gonna do what they're gonna do.

Really, I've tried to only occasionally dip back into the discussion, and I've tried to not just dismissively say what part of my brain thinks, especially with the more ridiculous, missing-the-point uses of AI vocals, which is some varation of  "Geez, just go look at porn."

I don't view even the "best" of the fake AI vocal pieces as much *musically* creative as it is a skillset in using technology/software. I'm not saying it takes zero familiarity with music, but the "musically creative" process involved in the fake AI vocal tracks is not the same type of musical creativity that springs from those who actually write and perform themselves. In my opinion, obviously. Thus, what comes out at the end of the process is just not the same thing.

I can't deny the possibility that some people are as interested or more interested in the technological noodling than the kind of heart/soul of the music itself and the pure creativity and skill involved in making real music.

In my "family" analogy, what I mean is that you have an effectively INFINITE amount of time with your family. We have effectively an infinite amount of *real* music to listen to. So yeah, if you're spending time with a fake holographic family (or whatever we want to make the analogy), where you're cavorting with your AI "what she would have looked like if she were still 25 years old" wife, then I'd question the usefulness. Obviously, this is an imperfect analogy. The "family" analogy involves morals and ethics as it pertains to personal relationships. Brian Wilson isn't going to have his feelings hurt if you listen to "1965 Brian sings 'Let's Put Our Hearts Together'". Or actually, would he? Or, would he wonder why people burn time listening to artificially created music?

This stuff is kind of aural fanfic, and I've always found fanfic (whether applied to fictional works or real people) supremely ridiculous. Much like fake AI vocals, most of it is *very poorly made*, and the stuff that is done relatively well still leaves me wondering variations of "what's the point?"

I said you were borderline shaming because: you’re claiming people are “breathlessly” searching for these AI tracks…two people low-key ask for some lossless files and they’re breathlessly asking? Really? You said that listening to AI tracks is like “cheating on your family”…There’s a clear difference between imploring and questioning versus making outlandish analogies that deride people’s musical tastes and interests (whatever your reasoning behind the analogy). I just see a bit of exaggeration with your posts and honestly don’t see the need. If you’re genuinely curious about why people like this stuff, perhaps ask them “why?” instead of telling them to listen to a Tampa ’74 show.

As for the rest of your post, I still completely stand by everything I said about musical/technical creativity and people’s personal music taste, and don’t see the need to respond further about that.

That's actually what I'm most excited about, particularly as I continue to explore why I don't care much for later Beach Boys music (particularly Love You) and Brian's solo stuff. Would I appreciate Love You more if it was sung by a younger, less vocally thrashed Brian? If nothing else, it's a troubleshooting tool. Dae Lims made a Love You track sung by a 60s Brian and I really like it. This tells me that part of my distaste for that album is Brian's voice. Turns out I really can't stand Brian's vocals from the 70s until about BWPS. Hearing some tracks from those decades sung by a younger Brian gives me a new appreciation for them.

Bingo. I explained sum of my "why" in the reply above. Beyond that, I'm intrigued by what could have been. As somebody who internalized the band's catalogue decades ago, I think a lot about what else they could have done and how that might have sounded. AI is a way to sort of test that. Most of it that I've heard so far, noble an effort as it may be, is terrible. Dae Lims' stuff is a rare exception (save for his 'Holy Man,' which makes Dennis sound British for some reason).

I'm intrigued by how close we can get to impersonation. I'm intrigued with the process.

But what I'm intrigued with the most is how apparent Dae Lims' talent is. He had to craft a dead-on analog impersonation of Brian with his own voice.  You can know these utilities in and out and be an expert musician, but if you don't intimately understand the sound of a person's voice, it's going to sound off, at best. Dae Lims has replicated most of Brian, Carl and Al's vocal qualities-- from the position of their tongues to the way they use their vocal chords-- with his own God given vocal chords.

AI just rounds out the sound, mitigating for anatomical structure and the genetic factors that make somebody's voice unique. It's quite a talent. I'm intrigued by it.

Yes, of course "breathless" is a bit of hyperbole. But I see an enthusiasm in some cases for the AI stuff that I don't see for the actual music (meaning *all* of the other music, not just the top-tier stuff), and there is some unavoidable absurdity to that, in my opinion.

I don't think I'm shaming anyone; I think an accusation of being patronizing or maybe sort of didactic, might be a more accurate accusation. To be clear, I'm not intending to do any of that either. But I acknowledge that kind of saying "People, listen to the THOUSAND hours of real music instead of the fake music" is unavoidably going to kind of come across that way.

I don't think I'm likely going to change anybody's mind, but I think it's just worth kind of chewing on alternative viewpoints *within* the realm of this topic, just on occasion at least. As I said, I haven't been butting in here scoffing at every new fake AI vocal that gets dropped or anything.

Again, I used the term “borderline shaming”, and I specifically said that because at heart I don’t think you’re actually trying to shame people - but when you use words like “absurd” to describe the enthusiasm people have about this music, how else do you expect people to feel about their preference/interest?

Thinking about all this I was reminded of a scene from the movie ‘Mr. Holland’s Opus’ where Mr. Holland, a music teacher, is explaining to his superior the reason he is using an unorthodox way of teaching his students music:

“Mrs. Jacobs….I will use anything from Beethoven to Billie Holiday to rock and roll, if I think it'll help me teach a student to love music.”

I guess how this relates is that I see people in this thread excited about The Beach Boys - and I honestly don’t think it matters why they are excited about them. I think that every fan in this thread would agree that the real Beach Boys are the way to go. But that shouldn’t diminish someone’s excitement, interest, and enjoyment in an AI track, either.

I do see where you’re coming from, HeyJude, and we probably agree more than disagree. But I guess I’m just happy to see people using this technology creatively in a positive way, and I’m happy that it’s bringing enjoyment to people.

I guess I find a level of absurdity that is something like this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7246/7840675810_297323a6b5_b.jpg)

This makes sense if you believe there's nothing redeeming in this content, that it brings nothing new to the table, that it can't possibly generate excitement about real Beach Boys music. You do you, chief.

However you frame it, whether outright calling it absurd or using a Simpsons screen-grab, it doesn’t diminish how belittling it is to those who create and enjoy the AI music. You keep using these analogies to make your point, but as you admit the analogies are clearly imperfect.

For instance, take Dae Lims’ attempt at Smile: If we’re going to use a fireplace/TV analogy, you have to get rid of the TV altogether, because most of the music (backing tracks, many vocal tracks) we’re listening to are the real deal. So it’s more akin to watching a real fire but someone has thrown borax on top of it to change the color of the flame a little. It’s not natural, and for some it doesn’t add any value to the fire, but for some it creates visual excitement and enhances the fire a little.

But that analogy is also imperfect. So why not just call a spade a spade? People are using modern technology to re-create Beach Boys vocals in order to create tracks that never were. Some people are going to dig it, some aren’t. But honestly there is no point in trying to “educate” people on the “correct” way to enjoy The Beach Boys - because we’re all different and enjoy different things about this band. So no matter how many analogies are thrown around or however much things are called absurd, I am still going to thoroughly enjoy a cleaned-up AI version of ‘Thank Him’ because my brain/soul tells me it’s beautiful.

Well said Rab.

I understand why AI terrifies some people. But like it or not, AI will leave just about no job or profession untouched.

Alongside what I said about the technology and use of it a few pages ago, I just enjoy hearing a fresh take on a familiar song and entertaining the "what if?" elements of the better of the AI projects. One that hit me was "Holy Man", which was done up to feature the Beach Boys backing vocals and various production tidbits...that was very cool because it never happened and won't ever happen, and here was a "what if" that listeners could soak in and imagine what it possibly would have sounded like if the band had actually done a full production with that song.

The one that was bittersweet, and I can't remember who did it (sorry), was Frank Sinatra singing Still I Dream Of It. That is something Brian himself always wanted to hear, if we believe interviews from that period it's something he tried to make happen via planned meetings with Sinatra and/or his people, but sadly it never came to be. So to hear a Sinatra voice singing that somng was pretty unique and pretty special for me as a Sinatra fan too. My qualms about some of the phrasing and vocal tics of Frank's aside, I thought I'd never hear Sinatra's voice on Brian's song, and thanks to the technology and the musician who put it together, I can finally hear it and imagine what it could have been like in reality.

I may be walking in a minefield saying this, but...I've gotten more enjoyment out of the better AI tracks than I have from the majority of the Beach Boys' recorded output after 1977. My go-to is still what I call the "magic" of their 60's Capitol records when Brian's voice sounded angelic coming through the speakers on those classic tunes. That's what I like, that's what gives me the most enjoyment and probably always will. If AI creators and artists give me something new that was thought impossible, and the quality and care they put into it comes through in the track, I'm all in. Hearing outtakes from KTSA? Not my cup of tea. But that's just me. I'm just a fan with opinions.

Has anyone tried to use AI to "clean up" the live "I've got a friend"? That's the one song I wish they could find in the vaults, but I guess it doesn't exist, so an AI-version would be nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jRtMxS5kcE

Some efforts work better than others, and some are more defensible from an artistic perspective than others.

But overall, I liken AI enthusiasts to the folks who create 300 alternate Smile mixes. You’re not harming anyone, but it’s sure not how I would choose to spend my time. And much of the material has little to no aesthetic value.

Real recordings of real people for the win.

Using AI/machine learning to separate out elements of extant wonky recordings is a GREAT use of that technology. That is a case of enhancing/uncovering what has already been made.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or change opinions, but am genuinely curious about how some of those opinions against AI came to be. I was initially against it philosophically, or whatever, but after hearing the technology used to create what I thought were compelling, enjoyable, and musically valid productions using AI modeling, my opinions changed and I saw it as a new technology being used to create music, in the same lineage as being able to layer sound on sound in the 1940's and edit magnetic tape in the 1950's to create totally new illusions of a musical performance that either didn't happen or couldn't physically happen, the forerunner of this being Les Paul and Mary Ford recording a dozen versions of themselves playing separate tracks with themselves on a single recording. It's physically impossible, yet using technology developed at that time they were able to execute such works and make them enjoyable and musically valid. I don't see a break in that line of history from Les' experiments with multitrack overdubbing and what AI is doing now.

Ultimately Les "cloned" multiple versions of himself and Mary on tape just like people are cloning existing sounds to create fantasy recordings. The quality variations are and always have been present, where you had Les putting out gems like "How High The Moon" and "Tiger Rag" while untold hundreds of hacks were trying to record symphonies of overdubbed belches or dogs howling or whatever....an exaggeration, but I think the point is there.


So that being said, how do you/we view tribute bands? In the past 20 years or so the tribute band scene has exploded, and there are thousands of them across the US alone doing gigs where the main goal (besides selling tickets) is to present the live experience in a fantasy scenario for fans of acts who will never or can no longer perform live. In some cases these bands use samples to recreate sounds that cannot be recreated outside a studio, and layer what they hope is a faithful recreation of the artists' vocal and instrumental blend on stage, as close to the records as possible.

Some are excellent, a lot are trying hard with big hearts but don't quite cut it. Yet it ultimately gives the fans an experience that hopefully makes them happy and fills a void, perhaps that "what if?" notion I mention yesterday, where a Queen fan can experience the music of Queen live even though Freddie has been gone for over 30 years, or gets the Pink Floyd live experience from the 70's via acts like "Aussie Pink Floyd" even though they weren't alive or were very young when Floyd was actually touring those albums in the 70's, and Floyd as a collective band will never tour again.

Is there a difference between an AI creator putting AI-generated Beach Boys backing vocals on and touching up a track like Holy Man for the studio format to create a fantasy studio experience and a band like Will Lee's excellent Beatles tribute act "The Fab Faux" using samples and loops to play I Am The Walrus or Tomorrow Never Knows live on stage while adding vocals and instruments specifically done to nail the original sounds of those instruments from the records to create a fantasy live experience?

I see both cases - when done with respect and proficiency - being two sides of the same coin.

Yeah, I think that's the long and short of it.

And really, I'm not even primarily making a "purist" argument or an "artistic integrity" argument (although those are legit arguments as well). I'm just saying there's so much *real* stuff out there, I don't think we could ever run out.

And yes, it doesn't help in my mind that the AI stuff absolutely *does not* sound "just like" the real thing.

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.

To add to your points, Guitarfool: This reminds me of when ‘That’s Why God Made The Radio’ was playing on our local rock station, and a friend of mine said “Hmmm that’s a good Beach Boys cover band” not knowing it was the actual Beach Boys (with help on those higher notes from younger talent).

My point being that even The Beach Boys themselves see the value in trying to sound like their younger selves - because that is what people relate/gravitate to. Granted I would so much rather hear Matt Jardine sing harmonies than an Artificial Intelligence Al Jardine, but in a recording setting they’re both somewhat (and I stress “somewhat”) trying to do the same thing - sound like the vintage Beach Boys. I’m not speaking strictly about the official nature of The Beach Boys releases, or the moral implications of AI - I’m speaking mostly about what listeners gravitate toward (and thus what is released) as it relates to the sound of The Beach Boys music.

There are also people on YouTube who try to do exact note-for-note covers of Beach Boys songs (to the point where they dress up in the blue striped shirts for their music videos). If all they are doing is a line-by-line copy, why wouldn’t we just listen to the original? Because some people like seeing the talent that other creatives produce. And those people making the covers enjoy the process/art of it all. Plus it’s neat to hear different inflections/ideas that the band/artist may interject.

TBH I am completely on the fence about this music. On one hand, I completely agree with Guitarfool & others that this music has the capability to enhance our personal enjoyment of the music. On the other hand, I agree with HeyJude about how ‘uncanny valley’ it is. And furthermore, even if I enjoy a song like ‘Thank Him’, I will still get this small feeling in the back of my mind that these creations are somehow ‘wrong’.

I think this all comes down to a very basic question: what do you prefer? I remember being on the other side of debates about this for years when it came to pitch correction. I believed at the time (and still believe) that fixing flubbed notes via technology is no big deal. Many other folks disagreed. The reason those debates went on and on without any real resolution was that neither side was objectively correct or incorrect. It boiled down to what you liked or didn’t like.

At this stage, AI Beach Boys songs usually feature a familiar backing track with a lead vocal run through a processor that makes someone sound vaguely like someone else. It’s the equivalent of wearing a rubber mask. Yeah, if you squint, it looks like the person, but everyone understands there’s no way it can be. If the fantasy of The Beach Boys or Brian Wilson singing certain songs in different eras or with different stylistic approaches means so much to you, I don’t think you’re a bad person for creating AI mixes or enjoying them. I’ve enjoyed some of them myself.

But there’s no way that what’s being produced has anything to do with how we’ve traditionally understood the creation of recorded music. It might end up putting musicians out of business, and there’s also nothing that I can do about that. But I can just say at this point, what my preference is.

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

I'm going to go with no. There would have been zero reason to use it back then, as they all had fully intact voices.

When we're talking about "AI" here, I think we're mainly talking about fake "soundalike" vocals. (If we're talking about generating *new* music from the ground-up using AI, that's a WHOLE other ball of wax, and to me even more goofy and pointless). And in the realm of vocals, Brian *could have* (and probably DID) sing "Guess I'm Dumb" back in 1965. He didn't need AI.

There was a point in the 80s and even 90s when some musical artists spent MORE time (and probably money) futzing around with programming drums instead of just having someone come in and PLAY them. And I think there's a lot of that happening with AI right now, especially with AI visual art, where people have zero interest putting *any* manual work into it. They type a description and their PC does the rest.

Each time a new thing comes along, people, understandably up to a point, compare it to some previous tech.

I just don't think using technology to make alterations to someone's work (e.g. autotune, any number of effects, machine-learning-enhanced audio splitting/separation, etc.) is the same thing as some random person singing into AI software to try to emulate what a *real* person would have sounded like under whatever the circumstances may be (and it seems to often if not usually be a younger version of the same singer).

An autotuned Brian is still *Brian's* voice run through whatever it may be.

With the AI vocals, it's some *other* person singing, and then using a program that has gobbled up many examples of Brian's voice, and then spits out an artificial, computer-generated voice guided by that random person singing.

Everybody has a different "line" I guess. Sort of like some people say the Beach Boys ended with Dennis's death, others say Carl's death, others say they're still *THE* Beach Boys now.

My cutoff on "Fake vs. Real" is the point at which the "voice/singer" in question plays no active role in what I'm hearing.

Make no mistake, it's "interesting" on some level to hear like Al and Mike filling in "Smile" vocals based on Brian's 2004 "Smile". Undeniably. It gives a bit of the flavor for what might have been. I recall hearing, pretty early on in the "AI vocal" fad, over a year ago at least, a 1980 Paul McCartney singing "Beautiful Boy." Did it sound like Paul? Not really, but it was as spot-on as "AI vocals" can get, and it was interesting as a curiosity to hear once, to briefly get a taste of imagining what the real thing would have been like.

But I can't live with the stuff, it doesn't work to actually continually listen to.

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.

There will never another Brian Wilson.
I'm so happy for Carnie.

Edit: sorry, this was for another thread, don't know how it ended here, too.

He could fire myke Luhv- in honor of oldsurferdude!

I think even the staunchest Mike detractors would have to admit Mike did his *best* work on those group vocals in the 60s and early 70s.

And honestly, some of the moments on even something like "That's Why God Made the Radio" where it stops sounding like Brian solo stuff and starts sounding like *THE* Beach Boys is when Mike's bass voice is in the mix (and Al in the mid-range of course).

The group vocals that they executed for Brian in the 60s, especially obviously the 64-67 era, are so beyond reproach and so KEY to that material that it's goofy to even suggest in jest that Brian would have wanted to use AI instead of them. This was the era where they were MOST integral to Brian's music.

AND, the fact that, as we've heard from some "stack of Brian" vocals from that era where he clearly *could* do it himself, Brian CHOSE to bring Mike and the other guys in to do the vocals proves how important he felt those voices were.

If you want to complain about Mike being a dick in some 2013 interview or something, have at it. But 60s Mike vocal work is like some of the most integral, important stuff the guy ever did. 

It needs to be said: this is getting tiresome from both sides. There is no resolving such different perspectives. No one is going to "win" here.

I seriously doubt that more than 5% of those who listen to AI-generated tunes become so enamored of them that they prefer them to the originals. That argument is such a pathetic strawman that I'm shocked it came from someone who is ordinarily one of the most intelligent posters here.

If a few folk go over the edge in that way, it's because some portion of the population will do so with anything. (Hell, a lot higher percentage of the US population has gone over the edge with respect to far more pressing issues, and possibly we should be focusing on that danger as opposed to the "specter of AI" ruining our lives.)

I absolutely love what Dae Lims has been doing. Do I think it replaces or supplants the original recordings? Of course not. I'm a fan of Dae Lims in the sense that GF alluded to--admiring the work of a man with significant talent, sensitivity and expertise who is paying his form of tribute to a band that he loves just as much as any of us. That tribute should be seen as a sincere effort to replicate a sound that no other group of individuals can recreate for us--it is not coming to us from some cabal of "pod people" gestating in someone's basement, but from someone who's carefully studied the band for some time, and who's making a sincere effort to respect the underlying aesthetics at work.

Do I think that he's achieving 100% success? Of course not--but, then again, neither did the band. Do I prefer some of Dae Lims work to some portion of the band's actual output? I can't say for sure at this point, because I've had half a century to make up my mind about the relative quality of the band's music. But I seriously doubt that Dae Lims has any illusions about his work somehow supplanting the band's recorded legacy. Enough with the spookifying already! Do I like Dae Lim's "Our Happy Home" more than, say, "Cuckoo Clock"? Absolutely--even as a "fake," it's better sung, and it's an intriguing and quite beguiling reimagining of "Our Sweet Love," a much more sophisticated track than what the band (and Brian) were capable in their very earlv years. So shoot me already!  :police:

We can either agree to disagree and move on, or we can keep bickering about something that already is totally out of our control. Regardless of what anyone thinks about this issue from any possible perspective, the momentum of AI is relentless and will have more effects on the future than what is occurring here in this little cocoon of ours.

Let's just not get as intractable as the misanthrope over at the Nearest Faraway Place, who probably would (if he could) send a ragtag mob of hooligan purists over to Dae Lims' studio to put a halt to all this. That won't stop it, either, and it would just deprive us of the one person who does this with a palpable sense of artistry.

Just remember: no one has to listen to it if they don't want to!  :3d

One quick postscript: I agree 100% about what Jude said about Mike and the band's vocals in the "golden era" time frame. And that is exactly the part of what makes it so hard to replicate this band. If we can separate Mike's (perceived) personality from his singing skills--and we should--then we can separate the sincere, sensitive user of AI from the more invidious aspects of it as it manifests itself elsewhere. Let's go for the "glass half full" approach in these instances whenever possible--remembering that, despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the past eighty years, we've not yet managed to blow up the world...  ::)

Very well said.

Maybe I'm too simplistic, but when listening to such gems as Dae Lims' "Our Happy Home" I simply bask in the bliss. Don't care about AI, autotune, authenticity, name it. If it is good music, I just thank Heavens that it exists, whatever the reason it exists.
Heroes and Villains, Part II, is a patchwork, but it is also one of my favourite pieces of music ever.

I was wary of it coming across as a strawman argument. But..... this is a thread full of people who dig the AI stuff. That's what I've been talking about. If I had started a thread absent pages of enthusiasm over these AI vocals, then I'd be in strawman territory.

I don't want to run this into the ground either. I will say that the board ain't exactly hopping with activity recently. The "AI Thread" is one of the only active threads of recent time here. As I've mentioned, I haven't belabored the point often over the last year or two since these AI vocals have become more prevalent. Rather, I do think an occasional check-in and discussion and perhaps even the *occasional* existential question concerning the AI stuff is worth delving into. And interesting.

I don't *think* I ever said *anybody*, not even 5%, "prefer them (AI vocals) to the originals."

Rather, what I was saying is that it *seems* like there is a contingent of fans who undoubtedly have not *run out* of real Beach Boys music and have still turned to AI recordings.

In other words, yes, I'm saying I'd rather listen to, and I'd encourage other fans to listen to, like "MIU Album" before a fake '66 Brian vocal. That's what I mean. And no, I'm not saying every person that digs AI vocals haven't listened to "MIU" (or fill in the name of whatever), I was just offering a bit of perspective in light of what *seemed* to be a case of losing a tiny bit of the plot.

The Beach Boys, and all of the off-shoot stuff, offer a MILLION hours of real music. Such that I don't think ANYBODY, including myself, could ever exhaust that supply such that they'd need to start listening to artificially generated recordings.

*Obviously*, some feel they can do both. What I'm saying is that, since again I don't think *any* of us have exhausted the existing supply of actual real music, then there are people who are choosing artificially generated music over the real thing. And really, I'd extend this all past BB music on to *any* real music.

I think there is an absurdity to listening to artificially generated music when an *endless, bottomless* well of real music is sitting right there. Hence the Simpsons fireplace gag.

I'm not saying people can't make it or listen to the stuff. I guess I *am* kind of, sort of saying they *shouldn't*, but not that they can't. I'm just taking the "AI conversation" into another corner, if only briefly.

What we listen to, how we absorb and consume this music, is part of how we related to each other in conversations.

I think it can be important to know if the person I'm talking to has every 1999 Beach Boys concert audience recording but has never listened to "Sgt. Pepper." And thus it can be important to know, and perhaps *occasionally* talk about, a case where some fans are listening to artificially generated "Beach Boys" music while leaving some real music by the wayside. None of these things make anybody bad people. It doesn't even mean I'm suggesting we shouldn't still have Beach Boys discussions with each other.

But maybe, just *maybe*, when the board is pretty quiet and one of the only active threads is about artificially generated music, then *maybe* there's something askew going on with the fans, or fandom, or the fan base, whatever we want to call it. And maybe, on occasion, I may be so bold and risk sounding elitist or snobby or whatever, if I say some variation of "Go listen to real music instead! Because I know NONE of us have run out of it!"

We only have so many hours, days, etc. To borrow and adapt a phraseology I find kind of amusing but also apt, time spent listening to artificially generated music is time spent NOT listening to something more worthwhile.

But to reiterate, I'm not out to convince anybody of anything, or change any minds. I'm kind of advocating for people to change this particular listening habit I suppose, but I'm not under any belief my words will actually do so. This is more just a series of thoughts, of *slightly* philosophical blurbs that involve this AI stuff.

I'm okay living with the knowledge that some people listen to this stuff and generate it, and they apparently may or may not be okay with the knowledge that I think doing so is *a bit* absurd and something where I would (likely fruitlessly) advocate an alternative. All the meanwhile, I think it's fun and interesting and worthwhile to discuss it while knowing we're not changing any minds. It's still interesting!

I think all of us here know that there is an endless supply of real Beach Boys tracks, whether in bootleg form or YouTube, you-name-it. I mean heck, most of us younger-ish fans probably all downloaded an infinite number of bootlegs from the same mediafire/blogspot blogs. We are all well aware of the recordings so I’m just not sure who you’re advocating to. It’s not like we’ve been asleep for the last 30 years and are intentionally ignoring every release and every bootleg that has surfaced/released.

For some of us, listening to a couple AI Beach Boys tracks, created by people who love this band, is more sonically rewarding than hearing Mike Love croon out ‘Surfin USA’ at the 1984 Olympic Gala. And perhaps many of us are listening to obscure live bootlegs from ’77 and we just don’t feel the need to talk about it on a message board. Whereas when someone uses modern technology to create a near perfect ‘Let’s Put Our Heart’s Together (1966)’, I feel like that is something that is obviously worth talking about (especially in the context that this type of thing was utterly impossible just 2 years ago).

I’m dumbfounded that the simple act of someone enjoying a piece of music is so unsettling to you that you need to write a 15 paragraph post in an attempt to “advocate” that these people need to listen to certain type of music. You claim that people who listen to AI are wasting their time, but yet all I see here are people who are just simply enjoying what they are listening to (so to them it’s not a waste of time). It’s just kinda weird that you’re attempting to “encourage” & “advocate” that people enjoy a certain type of music. Also kinda weird that you’re dictating what is and isn’t a waste of people’s time.

His disdain-- not just for "fake" music, but for those of us that don't share his opinion on this matter-- is palpable.

This is perhaps an illustrative example of what I was mentioning in my previous post. I don't believe a "fake 1966" version of "Let's Put Our Hearts Together" is "near perfect." Indeed, I feel, especially in the case of a track like that, it's entirely missing the point. Listen to that 1976 Brian demo tape. *That* context for him writing and performing the song in 1976 is *part* of that song.

I won't belabor that point, but what I was trying to say, in part, in my previous posts, is that I was commenting on how we fans relate to each other based on the opinions, preferences, priorities we bring to how we listen to the Beach Boys. I guess what I was trying to say is that it's jarring to learn that maybe some of the fans I talk to are not as much on the same page on this whole Beach Boys thing as I thought. They may be a bit more fixated on certain things, prioritize certain things, and that changes how we talk. Which is okay. But worth discussing I think. It's a bit meta I admit, to talk about how we talk.


I agree! And that's what we're doing! You just have to be prepared for that emerging discussion of this new frontier to include not all positive or affirming comments. And I have to be honest; I feel like I've gone pretty light on actually castigating the core of "AI music", meaning I haven't even really delved into the broader ramifications that countless people have already written thinkpieces about. All the "this is scary technology" pieces, etc. I haven't ever burst in saying this stuff is evil and needs to be stopped. Rather, I've just dealt with its existence with the comments I've made, namely that it seems weirdly empty and superfluous to me beyond a one-time experimental listen.


Yeah, I mean, that is kind of what I'm doing. I *am* coming in here, just on occasion (and obviously I didn't intend my initial post in this latest round to then elicit further posts and lead to more posts from me; although I'm fine with that and welcome the discussion) and just offering a quick kind of semi-rhetorical "Do you/we want to burn time listening to fake music?"

As for "15 paragraphs"; setting aside how multiple paragraphs complaining about another post with too many paragraphs is always a bit of head-scratcher, long posts is often what I do. It's my jam I guess. I'm not into clicking "like" on forums or quick "yeah, what he said" type of posts. This is one of the last places around to talk about the Beach Boys that hasn't been stripped down to basic grunts and quick sentences like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. And Reddit isn't much better, and actually kind of worse. So you're going to often get a number of paragraphs from me. It's my thing. I figured that was always kind of obvious from my zillion posts over the years.

Gosh, I feel like disdain is too strong a word. I'm not a fan of it, and I was initially incredulous and then I suppose in disagreement over making the fake music and listening to it in any substantial amounts. That in turn, as I've said *multiple* times, can sometimes sound kind of condescending or snobby, etc. All I can say is that I acknowledge it can *sound* like that, but I truly don't mean it that way. It's a disagreement, a difference in preference, on an admittedly kind of fundamental, existential element of the subject/topic/thing we all love. I can only hope, given the nearly 20 years I have here on this forum and the many, many discussions I've engaged in with good intent and good faith, that people will believe me when I say that.

Believe me, it would be very easy to burst into the metaphorical room here and be very cranky, mean, condescending, and dismissive on this topic. I've *tried* to find a way to A) Express my opinion on the matter, B) Do so without being insulting and C) Indicate that I'm not only open to but in fact *like* continuing the discussion on these matters.

I’m very surprised at your posts in this thread, HeyJude. While we don’t always see eye-to-eye (though usually I think we do) I have respected your knowledge and opinions through the years. But goodness I don’t get how you can post what you’re posting in this thread. My qualm isn’t that you have negative opinions about AI tracks - I have said myself that I have reservations about this technology and I have spoken negatively about certain tracks that don’t cut it for me.

My qualm is that you’re belittling people - and you can’t even see or acknowledge that you’re doing it. No one’s personal tastes need to be called or related to the word “absurd”, no one needs to be re-educated as to what music they should or should not be drawn to. No one needs to be told what they should be listening to. You’ve used hyperbole and analogies that don’t paint the listener in a nice light.

My qualm isn’t that you wrote 15 paragraphs. My qualm is that you wrote 15 paragraphs that belittle the listener into a different/lower class of fan. You’re claiming that it is “jarring” that some fans like to listen to an AI creation of The Beach Boys over other real beach boys tracks - and you seem to imply that this puts them in another category of fan/listener (as you literally put it “not on the same page”). Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? We’re now mentally segregating posters because they’d rather listen to Dae Lim’s Smile than some Cocaine session material?

If Zenobi likes to listen to AI tracks, this “changes how we talk” with him? You cannot be serious.

I have been a rabid Beach Boys fan since childhood. They are my undisputed fav group, Brian Wilson is my fav musician, they all are among my fav singers. Listening to Mike's bass always sends shivers thru my spine.
Have listened to every Beach Boys (and related) music I "could put my hands on", physically or otherwise. Have listened to literally dozens of SMiLE mixes, Adult Child mixes, Paley session mixes etc.
All this is for context, now to AI.
The only AI music I listen to is Dae Lims' creations, and love most of them. Yes, not the Beach Boys, I know, but IMHO it's excellent Beach Boys related stuff. This to say that I don't think that liking Dae Lims makes one a lesser Beach Boys fan. I like what he does BECAUSE I am a Beach Boys fan.

Fun fact: the first few times I saw title topics with "AI" I thought that they were about Al Jardine. :P

A little bit, yeah. It doesn't mean we can't still discuss stuff, and as much as it *sounds* like passing judgment, it isn't really. It's a piece of information I can't help but use.

If someone tells me they're a huge music fan and they collect vinyl, but they leave it sealed and never listen to it, that might also impact how I approach how and what I discuss with them.

As I believe I mentioned before, if someone tells me they listen to "Summer in Paradise" on repeat but have never heard "Sgt. Pepper", then that might impact how I approach talking to them.

This is all probably being overstated in that, to be clear, I don't really retain every interest, fetish, or possible peccadillo of everybody here. Especially these days with sprawling threads, with gaps of time with little activity, etc. So I'm unlikely to remember, and I'm certainly not taking notes, on which person expresses which level of breathless enthusiasm for artificially generated music. When we're over on a "Smile" thread or whatever, the AI "issue" is probably not even going to enter my mind.

So when I say that things like a preference for AI might change how I have conversations with people, I'm probably speaking in a more general, abstract way. Something more likely to happen in a 1-on-1 discussion. Or, obviously, a thread specific to AI.

This is all a two-way street. I interjected my thoughts on issues related to artificial Beach Boys music and how or when people listen to it. If people don't give a s hit, then that's where it ends. If people want to litigate the issue, or I guess, litigate what I meant, or what they think I meant, or what they think I think they meant, etc., I'm usually happy to keep chatting about it.

This makes perfect sense to me. I'm not someone who would ever seek out AI music but I've really enjoyed the Dae Lims stuff as well.

The analogy to tribute bands also makes sense to me. We are all fans of 60s/70s music here, and the chances to hear that kind of music performed by the original artists continue to slowly dwindle. I used to turn up my nose at tribute bands in general, but last year caught an amazing performance by Laurel Canyon, a CSNY tribute band. The music was performed with warmth and reverence and emotion and hit all the feels for me. In Beach Boys terms, it might be kind of analogous to an epic performance by The Wondermints more so than e.g. a bar band playing early 60s Beach Boys songs while wearing striped shirts. A band that considers themselves lucky to carry on this great music, and wants to continue giving people enjoyment from it.

The Beach Boys saga is fascinating too because there are an absolutely endless number of what-ifs and paths not explored, and it's strange for me to even be typing this but I do think AI can play a role there when used properly. Something like the AI version of Holy Man is beautiful music, but it's also an interesting way for us fans to *experience* something that sadly didn't happen -- what a full Dennis track backed by The Beach Boys would have sounded like.

What I like most about the  Dae Lims "Holy Man" is the kind of production. It is not after the typical "chamber music" Brian approach, it's more epic and symphonic, like Dennis would probably have done it. However, "Holy Man" is one of my favourite songs and there can never be too many "takes" on it.:)

Creative artists usually use the existing technology to the utmost, and sometimes instigate new technology.
Bach was one of the first musicians to use the piano. Mozart invented the glockenspiel to get the sound of tuned sleigh bells for the "Magic Flute". Wagner invented the Wagner tubas, used tuned anvils as instruments, stacked different instruments to get never heard timbres.
In the 90's Prince issued an interactive CD video of his music, structured like an adventure video game (it was a masterpiece).
I can well imagine Mozart using AI to get the glockenspiel sound, and Brian using AI to get the sound of, say, a prepared piano.

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?

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.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a difference between any recording tech used to alter/enhance a human being singing or playing an instrument, and technology in which music is artificially created by an algorithm/software. In one case, it's still a human doing it, in the other, it's not.

I *think* Brian Wilson was smart enough even in 1961 that he would have taken notice of this difference. Until one of us jumps in a time machine and offers it to him, that's my best guess.

All this other stuff where the bar is being lowered where the hypothetical is now Brian using AI to "experiment", to "create demos", to do like experimental lab work for his own personal use, yeah, I guess that's different? But I feel like people are trying to "prove" the efficacy of artificial computer-generated vocals, to imprint some kind of potential theoretical endorsement by Brian of this stuff, by suggesting this possibility, and I don't think it's really particularly analogous to what we're talking about.

People are consuming these AI vocals presently as enjoyable music to listen to. This is bringing it much closer to "released" music being consumed in a very similar fashion to actual real music.

The discussion of AI vocals here didn't begin with just the knowledge that people were using this tech behind the scenes for experimental/workshopping purposes. Now, I'm sure some will contend that is what the makers of the AI stuff are doing. But again, I don't think their work is then being consumed as such. In the analogy of Brian using AI as a behind-the-scenes aid in his creative/technical process, we'd never even hear that stuff, let alone listen to it as if it was the real thing.

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.

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 dunno, but maybe it would be "Why? Didn't I finish the album in 2004, and didn't we also put out a Beach Boys version several years later?"

I'll have more to write when I get to my previously-mentioned thoughts on my recent re-listen to a bunch of that AI vocal stuff, but I will say that the stuff works much more as a "squint and imagine" exercise as opposed to a crystal clear, full-blown, high-fidelity detailed listening session.

I think Brian would be able to tell these things don't sound like him (or Carl, or Mike, etc.), and the question would be more whether he would be a nice, polite guy and say "Interesting, cool, thanks for your enthusiasm" or "Wow, that kind of sounds somewhat like us", or just blurt out that it doesn't sound like the Beach Boys individually or collectively.

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.

Aside from doing the Beach Boys AI stuff as fun hypothetical scenarios, I am an active producer/songwriter in the industry. I use AI to demo songs for female artists. I'll also use it if a singer's (or my own) tone isn't quite nailing it for a demo. And it's not just me, lots of my peers are using it as well. I'd say it's totally possible BW and the likes would've used AI if it were around in the 60's. There's also such thing as "hybrid models", where for instance Brian could've combined his voice with, say, Mike's to get a punchier more nasal tone if he wanted.

The applications for this technology are so far ranging it's incomprehensible. Imagine wars being fought with AI computers that can calculate potential outcomes of battles by using information about Generals/culture/motivations/soldier-strength/etc - and creating battle plans with that knowledge. Imagine the technology where all the cameras placed at every stoplight in America can keep track of any person/car without human interaction. Imagine an AI that can take the sum of a person's entire web-browsing history and use it to create a psychological makeup of that person in milliseconds, and then using that information to help predict a person's actions/whereabouts/etc.

On the culture side, we've already had an AI track (maybe more than one) hit the music charts (and these tracks were not created with approval from the artist the AI was replicating). How many of us look at a video now and say "hmmm something isn't right with that" (look up the Sora video creator), or hear a narration on a Youtube video and it sounds soulless (because it's AI narrated)? Or how about the AI generated "art" that Adobe and other companies are promoting? While in practice it is a neat thing to mess around with, the end product just feels void of soul - there is something missing.

One thing I like about Dae Lims work is that there is such a human presence to it. He isn't typing a prompt into ChatGPT asking for a song to be created out of thin air, he is meticulously working at these tracks, and it shows. His work is one of the few things I actually like from this new wave of modern AI tech.

I regret using Smile as an example in my question because both responses to it so far have focused more on my use of Smile as an example (it happened to have been the latest Dae Lims thing I listened to) than the actual question I'm asking. Let's forget I used that example. And I won't provide another one because that will get parsed to hell too.

Exactly. There's some other cat out there dabbling in this with Beach Boys music and I couldn't get 30 seconds into the first track. When it comes to most things AI-- from writing to art-- I'm solidly in HeyJude's camp. It's Dae Lims' love for, and deep grasp of, the music and the band AND his musical abilities that make his stuff worthwhile to me.

No, I totally get that you didn't mean to single out "Smile" and that you were just using it as a random example. I don't want it to come across as if I harped too much on specifically "Smile"; I think we all understand how that particular example would be unique in some ways.

But, if we're talking about any of the extant examples, I do think I'd fall back on what I said earlier:

I think Brian would be able to tell these things don't sound like him (or Carl, or Mike, etc.), and the question would be more whether he would be a nice, polite guy and say "Interesting, cool, thanks for your enthusiasm" or "Wow, that kind of sounds somewhat like us", or just blurt out that it doesn't sound like the Beach Boys individually or collectively.

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 every 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.

In regards to if Brian would dig hearing these tracks, here is a quote from FatheroftheMan (who did the popular Bookoff Smile AI mix) that kinda relates to this:


This stuff is cool for some of us as fans, but I think it's probably just plain weird to those whose voices are being replicated. In FOTM's defense, VDPs has been very vocal about not liking the sound of his own voice, so it could've been that and not the quality or idea behind the mix.

Brian was called "dog ears" by Mike because Brian could/can pick up on everything. He would probably instantly be able to tell it is fake - I'd imagine he'd really get a kick out of the idea of it, but would probably be instantly turned off by the sound of the fake voices. Many of us can look past the digital artifacts and vocal flubs heard in most of these mixes, but I think Brian would be less forgiving about that stuff.

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.

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.

I really liked her line "the thing that creates art is the human experience, not a computer's experience" but then I, too, immediately thought about how literally everything in modern music is done with the aid of computers...And most egregiously the use of fiddling with someone's vocal to make them "pitch perfect". So are we actually hearing a 100% real voice anymore? Most likely not, when it comes to any top 40 hit. We are hearing someone's voice being filtered through a computer with pitch correction. It is 95% their voice, but it's not a 100% real vocal anymore - and it's because of a computer.

Also, in the context of AI, when I first heard the AI 'Thank Him' or the coda on the AI 'Holy Man' it felt like when I first heard 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' in stereo for the first time. And I'm not exaggerating that - it was that same endorphin rush when I hear a gem from the real Beach Boys for the very first time. And this is likely because I know that 'Thank Him' and 'Holy Man' are real songs and Dae Lims is just cleaning them up (by replicating vocals) and adding some Beach Boys-like harmonies. But the fact that a computer helped make that and my brain enjoyed it, that experience cannot be discounted. So as much as I want to agree with Sheryl (because I think at heart her quote above is very true), I also can't ignore that my brain felt a meaningful connection with a fake Brian Wilson vocal.

What a crazy time to be alive.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see this as such a hazy sort of situation.

I just don't subscribe to the slippery slope that the invention of the microphone or tape splicing or outboard effects are the same thing as artificially generated vocals.

This about the intent and actual actions on the artist's end, and then on the listener end it's a matter of what we know we're listening to.

I think the vast, vast majority of people who CONJURE this stuff up, who write it and then workshop it and perform it themselves, have the reaction Sheryl Crow had in that video. You kind of either get it or you don't. Yes, artists are often sensitive people. But if you are one, or if know one, or even if you just study one (which I think BB/Brian fans do), this should be clear, and is something that by and large is a virtue.

Just like people who actually draw/paint, etc. artwork are rightfully put off by the lazy people who type a description into an AI art program trained on a MILLION PEOPLES' ARTWORK, and then spit out their "masterpiece."

People can come up with exceptions and scenarios where some people are recording things so inorganically that everything is augmented by software or effects, etc. But at the end of the day, Brian Wilson (or whomever) singing a vocal and then autotuning it up the wazoo and adding 97 plug-in effects is still a *human being* driving the task.

Somebody dumping a thousand examples of Brian vocals into a computer, and through machine learning crafting a fake Brian voice, and then singing to guide that artificial voice; that is not the same thing. Saying it's the same, or anywhere near the same as splicing tape or the advent of digital recording is, to me, like saying orange marmalade and orange house paint are the same, or similar, or that one is just a progression of the other.

This line got me thinking about if AI had been used to restore classic works of art. And after looking it up, it has.

What Dae Lims is doing is not typing a description in and a computer is spitting out the result. Rather, it is what you say "somebody dumping a thousand examples of Brian vocals into a computer, and through machine learning crafting a fake Brian voice, and then singing to guide that artificial voice"

Using the example of 'Thank Him': that is Dae Lims using this technology to "restore" a very weathered piece of art. And just like restoring a painting (where the strokes are not real but simulated), Dae Lims is using the "strokes" and "color schemes" of Brian's voice to restore the vocal. It's not real, but I don't see why it's "absurd" to enjoy the result of this.

Are we to look at a piece of fine art, restored with AI, and not find beauty in it? Is it not still art? The intent behind the art is still primarily with the original artist, a computer is merely helping us see something closer to the artist's original piece. Or lets say someone, out of sheer curiosity, wanted to see 'Starry Night' by Van Gogh, only done more in the style of his 1886 work 'Le Moulin de Blute-Fin' - would that be absurd if people enjoyed the AI result?

I don't see why it's any different for the music of The Beach Boys. Again, your initial argument is that no one should be looking to AI Beach Boys to hear "more" material when there are thousands of hours of real Beach Boys music yet to be discovered. But if someone wants to hear a "restored" version of 'Thank Him', why is this more absurd than listening to the static-sounding real demo? I think they both have a place in The Beach Boys world - and clearly many people on Youtube and on the forums agree.

I'm not like a painting/art aficionado, but from everything I've seen, painters/illustrators and other visual artists are emphatically against using AI *in any way*, including restoring or "completing" pieces. Like, exponentially more than even musicians/singers from what I've seen. Probably because, right now, it's easier for some schlub to type stuff into a prompt and spit a "finished" piece out.

If you want like an A+, pristine example of "MISSING THE POINT", check this out:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/keith-haring-painting-artificial-intelligence-180983563/

A short excerpt:

The year before he died of AIDS-related complications, the artist Keith Haring created a unique work known only as Unfinished Painting (1989). In its upper-left quadrant, black and white lines form stylized patterns on a purple background. Streaks of purple paint trickle down onto the otherwise empty lower-left quadrant; the right half of the canvas is also blank. Haring intentionally left the work unfinished as a commentary on the AIDS crisis.

Now, a newly “completed” version of the work—made with the help of artificial intelligence—is generating controversy: A social media user employed an A.I. image generator to expand Haring’s designs across the blank sections of the canvas, ultimately posting the altered image on X, formerly known as Twitter.

I'm sorry, there's just not a way to draw a particularly good non-AI analogy to using AI. And really, with visual art, it's even easier to say a hard "no" to it. A lot of that has to do with not being able to trust the people using the software, and that's not even really an aspect of the vocal AI stuff that I've even delved into.

There are ways to "restore" "Thank Him" without generating any new artificial voices or instruments. Indeed, Peter Jackson is rumored to be considering or possibly already working on using his machine-learning extraction/separation technology to clean up the Beatles' Star Club tapes. I think there's a limit to how much improvement that will offer, but that is a *perfect* use of the technology as I've often said.

Much like there are people who develop the "skill set" to finagle and massage the AI prompt process to get less messy results, there is no doubt potentially skill involved in making a fake AI Brian Wilson vocal. I've never said otherwise. But it's still also a computer algorithm doing a TON of the work, and it's that algorithm that is making that fake voice. No human being has a port where thousands of examples of Brian Wilson's recordings can be loaded, processed, and then a "Brian Wilson" voice can come out of your mouth.

Yes, some people who sing to guide their AI vocals are better at it. I've clicked on a number of "Paul McCartney" AI vocals that sound like Borat run through a McCartney filter, because the person singing it can't sing the right way, and/or they're not massaging the AI processing enough to make it sound less like themselves and more like whomever they're trying to sound like.

The cream of the crop Brian/Beach Boys examples we've been talking about are far, far less problematic than most of the stuff out there, no doubt both because it's made by someone who knows the proper context to start from, and no doubt because they have much more experience using the software than others. I'm *guessing* they probably also have a relatively unfettered "American" accent singing voice.

And yet, what I'm hearing is still an artificial program generating it, and as I've mentioned (and I'll go into in more detail as promised after my recent re-listen session to the AI stuff) I think even the best stuff still just doesn't sound *just like* Brian, or whomever it is in question. Some of them sound closer than others. With some, it's a uncanny valley thing where a little run of syllables sounds pretty accurate and then some sort of inflection is completely off, and in other cases it's just not even close across the board.

Very kind of you to say, I'm glad you enjoy the stuff. It's most definitely a labor of love. Appreciate all the kind comments.

Even if that is the case, it doesn't detract from the idea that people (moreso your average human) can find enjoyment and beauty in a work of art that was restored using AI. Which was my point. My point isn't that some people are adamantly opposed to AI - I myself work in the design field (graphic design), and can see how AI will be negatively affecting my job in the not-too-distant future - and I loathe how companies like Adobe are basically casting graphic designers aside (while using their work) for AI profit - and yet I can enjoy a painting that was restored using AI (especially if most of the original creator's work was already present in the piece). I can also see why actual painters would be pissed off at this technology, but again, that doesn't detract from the fact that some people can still look upon an AI restored painting and enjoy it.


This is someone who took a work of art that had a clear message, and they disrespected that clear message by "completing" it. It was not a restoration. And it seemingly wasn't done by someone with a clear love or knowledge of the original artist. Whereas stuff created by Dae Lims is made with the knowledge/love of this band.

I could bring up the painting Ecce Homo as an example of why humans shouldn't restore art, but clearly there are good and bad ways to restore art with the human hand. Likewise, because one person, in poor taste, "finished" a painting via AI that was meant to be left unfinished, it does not mean we should cast away the entire AI restoration process.


My point is that someone created software to look at the brush strokes and textures of specific artists, and they used those traits to restore specific paintings, and thus your average human can look upon those works and potentially see something beautiful. If people find it beautiful, who are we to call them (or their feeling of beauty) absurd?


Yes, there are other ways to restore. But again, my point is that Dae Lims created a "restoration" of sorts of 'Thank Him' and hundreds of people love it (per the likes on Youtube). People are finding this work beautiful - and thus their feelings shouldn't be cast aside as absurd.


However the voice is created, it is still a sound that is pleasing to many listeners.


Mostly agree with all of this. As I've said before, I hear the vocal flubs, I hear the digital processing in all of these tracks. But, using 'Thank Him' as an example again, I can more easily tune out any vocal abnormalities in the AI version than tune out the static/hiss/poor-quality of the original real demo. Thus I greatly enjoy the AI version.

That being said, if I were to be cast away on a desert island and I was given the choice to take either AI 'Thank Him' or the lousy sounding demo track, I would take the demo track every time. But that doesn't detract from my thorough enjoyment of an AI track, either. I do see the necessity/logic behind focusing on the real beach boys. In the last couple days of talking about this subject, I have listened to Dae Lims Smile and a couple other AI tracks, but have mostly been listening to Holland, Song Cycle, BWPS, etc. I'd think most people who listen to this stuff are like that: we find these AI tracks interesting/beautiful, but clearly the real band and the real music are what gravitates us toward this band/music (both real and fake).

Let me second that last thought, Rab! But the key thing here, I think, is that human emotion that Dae Lims is trying to honor and replicate...because for 90+% of us here, there is something in the BBs music that has a talismanic power over those of us who "get it." And it's a kind of conditioned aural response that is, as Adam Marsland discusses in his third installment about PET SOUNDS, linked to our disparate (but highly related) connections with (and yearning for) the spiritual power that can be manifested in music.

When we hear Dae Lims capture a large dollop of that sound in so many myriad reconstructions and re-imaginings of the BBs music, a large portion of us are conditioned to respond to that viscerally; it reaches us despite any intellectual resistance that might apply (and does clearly exist in others). There is a certain style of singing that is uniquely the BBs; other artists have approached it, and we sometimes get a kind of muted variant of such a response from that work. But when Dae Lims hits a certain vein of that singing style, it's closer to the uncut "sonic heroin" that floods into our ears and into our hearts than the human imitators with their watered-down hommages. I've had the same response as you, Rab, and while I can't totally dismiss Jude's skepticism, all I know is that Dae Lims has managed to tap into something special that produces that same emotional response.

And given that the band is never going to be able to do anything again--no new tracks, no reworkings of stillborn or abandoned efforts--and even in light of the fact that there is plenty of real music from the band to listen to, the fact is that the ongoing desire or quest for such a feeling is not "absurd"... it's part of a need for something life-fulfilling, something soothing, particularly in "a crazy time to be alive" when the band is not capable of providing that to us. And if AI can be wielded by someone in order to make that happen, then it's a (Paul Revere & the Raiders reference here!) "good thing."

And I think most folks can tell the difference--I don't get that feeling from everything Dae Lims does, but I get much, much less of it from anyone else attempting to use AI technology to create music. Thus I think we should accede to Jude's basic point, but also agree with GF that as a tool specifically applied to music, AI has potential to become a valuable artistic application in the right hands. And it will be practitioners with the approach exhibited by Dae Lims who represent the best hope for it to be applied with respect and a sense of responsibility so that there will be a clear line of demarcation between "artistic enhancement" and "absurdity."

Don, thanks much for that reply - you summed up perfectly what I can't really articulate well myself.

I don't think anybody much has like overt, purposeful ill intent when making AI vocals. And certainly, I'm very willing to take at their word both "Dae Lims" and those who like the work that it's not done with any ill intent.

That's sometimes part of the problem with some AI stuff, though. Like, how many people using AI to create art out there right now are doing it just to f**k with people, or to ruin anything?

Even the person that completed that poignant painting mentioned in my previous post, it doesn't appear as though they were trying to troll anyone or ruin anything. But they did. As with many cases, it's often unclear even *after* some AI stuff is lambasted, whether the person making it even *understands* the criticisms.

While some might be feigning ignorance, I think some really are just like "I'm made an art too! I'm an artist. I don't understand the problem."

I think the story of *why* people use AI to create art is still being written of course. I think, especially when it comes to visual art, there are a lot of lazy and/or untalented people who really get off on doing something that makes them *feel* like they're creating, like they're talented, like they're artistic. There is also a contingent of tech bros, adjacent to all the NFT stuff and whatnot, that are using AI to run various grifts. There are also some people just tooling around with it.

It's a very messy situation, and as I've often said, we haven't even delved into the broad moral/ethical implications of the stuff on this thread, up to and including a "Skynet/Terminator" sort of scenario. There are also smaller, more practical problems that will surely arise, including people NOT marking this stuff as fake/AI and letting it proliferate.

In the case with this BB stuff we're talking about, it is clearly done with a lot of workshopping and intent, and plenty of self-awareness as to the nature of what they're doing.

So, as I've mentioned in the more distant past, I really don't like bursting in like the Kool Aid man and questioning the work of one of the only people making this stuff who are being as thoughtful as possible about it, labeling it appropriately as AI, etc. But it's some of the only work in the realm of BB stuff that is getting attention, so it's what ends up being the topic of discussion.

From Dae Lims, a superb Good Vibrations AI stereo remix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW83O-xC8bQ

Tasteful remix. Well done daelims.

Aside from the stereo, can somebody bullet point the tweaks in this? I can't tell the difference between this and the 26 other releases of this track.

.

Quality of all of the lead vocals are upgraded. Full stereo separation of the background vocals (not without artifacts at times, unfortunately).

And, well, just my take on the overall mix. I got almost all of the instruments separated and remixed it from scratch.


Thanks so much!

A great mix and another good example of using AI well. Personally, I think this mix is a dramatic improvement on the official stereo mixes released so far. Past stereo attempts of GV have remained quite muddy and have limited separation (all for very obvious reasons), but this is both clearer and has better width and separation throughout - great work Dae Lims!

Yeah, it might be just because I'm limited to YouTube output, but I can't really tell a difference.

As with his remix of "The Little Girl I Once Knew," Dae Lims is a little airier here than what one's ears have become accustomed to from years of listening to the mono versions, but there is a great deal to recommend this--the clarity of the lead vocals is truly astounding, and the echo chamber effect on Mike's "Gotta keep those lovin' good vibrations..." is simply out of this world.

I think the "good good good good vibrations" line might still be better panned across the spectrum (its first entry sounds a bit less powerful than what we've heard all these years--it seems punchier in its subsequent iterations)--but that's just a quibble. Overall, it's definitely the best modern mix, and it's great to see the ongoing enthusiasm in the YouTube comments.

More, please!

Dae Lims GV is fantastic, and IMHO it should be integrated into the Dae Lims SMiLE.

This "Good Vibrations" stereo remix has AI vocals on it; I don't want to presume who noticed this or who didn't.

I was under the initial impression based on the title of the video that perhaps it was only using AI as a splitter/separation tool. But something immediately sounded off on the vocals. Subtle, but off. And, in fairness, it does state in the description of the video that it has AI vocal enhancements.

It wouldn't really make sense then to try to compare this to officially-released stereo remixes.