The most stunning Beach Boys AI I've heard yet

[CenturyDeprived]

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.

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.

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 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. 

[Joel Goldenberg]

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.

[pixletwin]

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

It was beautiful.

[CAFeelin89]

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.

[Joel Goldenberg]

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.

[Dwayne]

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!

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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.

[pixletwin]

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.

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.

[wavesoflove]

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.

[Don Malcolm]

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? 

[Zenobi]

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.

[Zenobi]

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.

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 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. 

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.

[Zenobi]

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.

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

[Zenobi]

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.

[wavesoflove]

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? 

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

[Dae Lims]

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

[Zenobi]

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

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

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

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

[CAFeelin89]

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

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?

[wavesoflove]

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.

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.

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

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

[Joel Goldenberg]

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

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

[Shane]

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

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.

[wavesoflove]

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.

[Joel Goldenberg]

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!

[Awesoman]

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.

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.

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 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. 

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.