[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.]

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."

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.

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.

I think Brian probably wasn't into writing "alone in a room" with Mike, for possibly personal reasons and also because that's wasn't his regular arrangement with all writers. I think he probably wanted to throw in-progress songs at collaborators and have them just add some stuff sometimes.

*But*, I do think it wouldn't have been the worse thing in the world to suck it up and write a few with Mike the way Mike wanted to do it (which, as I've said, would almost surely still have involved Brian bringing some partially-completed compositions to the room; I don't think he would have needed to literally conjure songs up from complete scratch). Or at least try. I honestly don't know how much Mike complained *during* the project about not getting to do it, or if he just saved the complaints for afterward.

It remains an open question as to whether taking a week or something to try to write "alone in the room" with Mike would have made Mike feel a lot better about the project.

As I mentioned before, I didn't want to turn it into another Mike gripe thread. I honestly think his complaint, *on its face* is not 100% invalid. I certainly would like to hear what Brian and Mike could have come up with. I'm not or wasn't convinced they had zero chance to do some good stuff.  That being said, I think the complaint has some subtext that goes beyond literally being perturbed he didn't write alone with Brian. I think that complaint springs from a large series of things he took issue with regarding the reunion. The whole thing went sour, and then a list of grievances began to take shape. Sort of like a couple breaking up and then listing off a bunch of stuff that weren't deal breakers but become part of the list of complaints in the aftermath. "And another thing, we always had to watch the movies HE liked!!!!"

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

IIRC I think Mike was publicly mocking Joe for his (supposed) fear of air travel.

I recall Mike mentioning it, but I don't recall him mocking it, but rather expressing some level of frustration or exasperation about it. Whether that was justified or not is of course up for debate I suppose.

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

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

I 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 have also long suspected that something changed pretty late in the reunion project concerning Mike's feelings about Joe Thomas specifically. Even *during* the tour, he was praising Joe. Then later on he seemed to develop a negative impression of the whole project, and I think when he says he didn't get to write alone with Brian, what he's maybe actually trying to say is that he was perturbed that Brian and Joe wrote most of the album. And I think maybe something soured Mike on Joe later in the tour, and that only made his negative feelings about the album stronger.

I recall at some sort of book reading/signing for his book a few years later, someone reported he implied some negative things about someone that seemingly only could have been Joe Thomas.

Keep in mind of course that Joe Thomas was a partner with Mike and Brian in "50 Big Ones Productions" that ran the whole tour. Thomas was deeply intertwined into the creative and business aspect of the album, and in the business aspect of the tour (and subsequent products that came from it, namely a live double album and two DVDs/Blu-rays).

Isn't It Time is one of my favorite TWGMTR songs, and I seem to remember it somewhat oddly went through some rewriting & lyric changes between the album version and the single version. (On the bridge, "we raise a glass to kindness" became "another day's behind us", etc.) Did Mike have a hand in that?

Mike is a credited co-writer on both versions of "Isn't It Time", so I'm not sure if he made those later changes for the single version, or if it was by committee. The recording of that version seemed to be hasty; I recall seeing pictures of Al in the middle of the tour recording his new vocals like in a hotel room or something like that.

Added an August date to the top post tour schedule.

As for him being allowed near the guy that he had sued multiple times, that was of course a choice for Brian and his team to make, but if so they shouldn't have misled Mike to believe otherwise, if that was the case.

And I think that's the rub, because from everything I've been able to gather, while there were initial discussions far earlier that maybe they’d record an album of oldies, once Mike entered into the actual reunion project, the parameters and plan were most likely pretty set. Brian and Joe Thomas had secured a new album deal based on songs Brian and Joe had written. They had X amount of time to both finish writing and finish recording the album, while also rehearsing for and then conducting a world tour. I don’t know, maybe much *later* in the process, after they had begun work proper on the reunion, somebody told Mike they would set aside time to write with Brian.

There’s also the possibility that what they ended up doing, namely handing Mike partially completed Brian/Joe songs, and having Mike add to or finish them off, constituted “collaboration” for some people. Mike’s got writing credits on four of the twelve songs.

Ironically, what almost surely would have allowed for more “from scratch” songwriting from Brian and Mike together would have been to not ditch the reunion so early. Had they regrouped for 2013, they could have continued doing more reunion tour legs while taking more time to do a *second* album where it would be more Brian/Mike material.

Imagine if things had gone just as they did, with Mike initially quitting the reunion and going back to his own thing, and then they had talked Mike into coming back and continuing the reunion by offering to allow for some substantial time for he and Brian to at least attempt to write some songs together. To be clear, I think the ship had already sailed on all of that. But it would be interesting to know if, either at that late juncture, or more so even earlier in the reunion project, things might have been different if they had essentially placated Mike and allowed for some “alone in a room” collabs. Especially when, even in that scenario, it probably would have still consisted of Brian *bringing in* partially completed song ideas.

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.

Not trying to start a Mike thread here, truly, but that article was interesting in that it's fascinating that Mike is still so sour, in fact seemingly *more* sour, on the "That's Why God Made the Radio" album now. I get his gripes, and I don't even disagree with all of them. It would have probably done the project a bit of long-term good to have just placated Mike and had he and Brian write a few tunes "from scratch."

But it's strange to have that specific perspective on that album. It clearly was made the way it was in large part because they didn't have a ton of time to finish it. And it's not as if there aren't other Beach Boys albums with *even fewer* Brian/Mike from-scratch collabs.

It almost feels like Mike is less perturbed that the album ended up with less Brian/Mike from-scratch co-writes, and more upset specifically that he feels like he was promised or strongly led to believe, at some point I guess, that the album would be focused around Brian/Mike co-writes. It's peculiar, because it sure seems like by the time they actual got the record deal, it was clear Capitol was signing them based on the bag of Brian/Joe songs, and also that given the amount of time they had to actually record the album, they would have to use those pre-existing songs as the basis for most of the album.

Again, not trying to inflame or stir the pot. I genuinely find this stuff fascinating, especially in light of things on a number of other fronts being relatively cooled off and amiable between the group members, and in terms of their feelings on individual subjects.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

Whereas when someone uses modern technology to create a near perfect ‘Let’s Put Our Heart’s Together (1966)’,

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 

The track certainly isn't the Rick Rubin/Johnny Cash "American Recordings" type of thing I had hoped Brian might dabble in over the last decade or two. I think between using the old Glen vocal and doing the best they could with Brian's new vocal track, the result has to sound a bit clouded/processed.

I actually wish on recent Brian tracks where he's heavily processed, they would more often go with what they did on "Right Where I Belong", where they apply some actual effects to the voice to distort it so it at least sounds different and purposefully processed instead of just sounding like autotune dialed up to 11.

That all being said, I have no problems with this track, and I think given recent events/news of the past several months, we'll look back on this period and be grateful Brian stuff is still coming out.

I certainly hope we get tons of Brian archival stuff, but I don't mind if they start trying to gather his most recent "new" stuff from recent years and give us that stuff as well.

And I think it remains to be seen what type of work Brian might still be able to finagle on his good days. I'm sure it has been and will continue to be a delicate balance to strike with Brian's people to determine how (or if) to coax material out of him, even if it's just some rough stream-of-consciousness piano material or something.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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