The most stunning Beach Boys AI I've heard yet

[El Molé]

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.

[Don Malcolm]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[rab2591]

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

[HeyJude]

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?"

[rab2591]

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.

[bonnevillemariner]

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.

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.

[bonnevillemariner]

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.

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[rab2591]

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.

[HeyJude]

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

[bonnevillemariner]

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

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.

[rab2591]

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.

[pixletwin]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[pmugghc]

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

[Wirestone]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[rab2591]

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’.

[Wirestone]

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.

[bonnevillemariner]

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