|
Post by lonelysummer on Apr 1, 2023 21:22:51 GMT -5
Although there are various opinions on this thread, maybe we can all agree that it would be really great if AI could not only compose music, but listen to it for us, too! Why would we want that?
|
|
|
Post by radiokingdom on Apr 1, 2023 22:03:30 GMT -5
Although there are various opinions on this thread, maybe we can all agree that it would be really great if AI could not only compose music, but listen to it for us, too! Why would we want that? Unsuccessful joke. Should have been clearer.
|
|
sloopjohnb
Historian / Researcher
Posts: 252
Likes: 401
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Apr 2, 2023 10:49:42 GMT -5
If the uploader would turn off the barely-functioning AI filter from his vocal tracks, these would be nice covers. He doesn't sound like Brian Wilson, but he sings good.
I don't have any good words to say about the way it's being presented, though
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Apr 3, 2023 3:53:18 GMT -5
Now this is a little better:
There are fleeting moments when I can hear definite hints of Brian... but to call it a BW lead vocal is driving a truck through the Trades Descriptions Act. "In the style of..." would be more like it. I can take that. Fact is, for all the AI jiggery-pokery, it's a nothing more than a guy trying to sing like Brian and then processing that. The future implications are as intriguing as they are disturbing, and there's no doubt that given time the results will be orders of magnitude better (and I hope to be around to pass comment), but at this moment in time, the results are seriously underwhelming when presented as an actual BW lead.
|
|
|
Post by KenWorthing on Apr 3, 2023 4:40:13 GMT -5
Dai-sy, dai-sy, give me your answer, do. I'm half cra-zy, all for the love of you. It won't be a sty-lish mar-riage, I can't a-fford a car-riage… But you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle - built - for … " .. Hey, Dave! ... you're my wife nowwww .. "
|
|
|
Post by Fall Breaks on Apr 3, 2023 6:35:17 GMT -5
Okay, but how about this one:
If this is what someone can do in their home today, tomorrow will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 3, 2023 8:36:52 GMT -5
A female band?
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Apr 3, 2023 8:47:31 GMT -5
Even if the AI was absolutely perfect and it sounded...good...the fact is and will always be that, you know, no matter how much it sounds like Brian Wilson singing, I dunno, Welcome to the Jungle, it, in fact, is not Brian Wilson singing. To me the implications of this kind of technology are not terrifying, they're sad. We are literally handing our humanity over to a third party. Instead of rejoicing in the actual work that someone did, in this case, something that the actual vocal folds of Brian Wilson manifested into the world, we are turning all art into novelty for self-gratification. Would it be "neat" to hear a computer generate a perfectly natural sounding version of Dennis singing IJWMFTT? I guess. But it isn't Dennis. It's a computer. It's not the artistry of a person, it's a pale simulacrum that by definition lacks humanity. And I, for one, experience art precisely because it is a human expression.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Apr 3, 2023 8:54:47 GMT -5
Even if the AI was absolutely perfect and it sounded...good...the fact is and will always be that, you know, no matter how much it sounds like Brian Wilson singing, I dunno, Welcome to the Jungle, it, in fact, is not Brian Wilson singing. To me the implications of this kind of technology are not terrifying, they're sad. We are literally handing our humanity over to a third party. Instead of rejoicing in the actual work that someone did, in this case, something that the actual vocal folds of Brian Wilson manifested into the world, we are turning all art into novelty for self-gratification. Would it be "neat" to hear a computer generate a perfectly natural sounding version of Dennis singing IJWMFTT? I guess. But it isn't Dennis. It's a computer. It's not the artistry of a person, it's a pale simulacrum that by definition lacks humanity. And I, for one, experience art precisely because it is a human expression.This.
|
|
|
Post by dauber on Apr 3, 2023 16:04:38 GMT -5
All I know is...
1) I don't care what anybody says, these things are a very convincing 1968-1969 Brian voice, with a few nuances here and there that are just a tad off, and
2) I hope they use this technology to give us a Shaggs version of "Largo al factotum."
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Apr 4, 2023 3:07:31 GMT -5
Even if the AI was absolutely perfect and it sounded...good...the fact is and will always be that, you know, no matter how much it sounds like Brian Wilson singing, I dunno, Welcome to the Jungle, it, in fact, is not Brian Wilson singing. To me the implications of this kind of technology are not terrifying, they're sad. We are literally handing our humanity over to a third party. Instead of rejoicing in the actual work that someone did, in this case, something that the actual vocal folds of Brian Wilson manifested into the world, we are turning all art into novelty for self-gratification. Would it be "neat" to hear a computer generate a perfectly natural sounding version of Dennis singing IJWMFTT? I guess. But it isn't Dennis. It's a computer. It's not the artistry of a person, it's a pale simulacrum that by definition lacks humanity. And I, for one, experience art precisely because it is a human expression. It really depends how you think about it. When you hear a recording of a voice, you are not actually hearing that person's voice, you are hearing a facsimile of it, rendered by grooves, iron filings, or 0s and 1s. The way the AI works is that the computer is fed many examples of the singer's voice. It can then use micro portions of these performances to construct new ones. As I understand it, it's like sampling on the quantum level. Therefore you are actually hearing the singer. It's as real as any other recording, that is to say all recording is smoke and mirrors. Even the most documentary of recordings. You will find criticisms of authenticity and honesty going right back to the 1890s.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Apr 4, 2023 4:22:24 GMT -5
It really depends how you think about it. When you hear a recording of a voice, you are not actually hearing that person's voice, you are hearing a facsimile of it, rendered by grooves, iron filings, or 0s and 1s. The way the AI works is that the computer is fed many examples of the singer's voice. It can then use micro portions of these performances to construct new ones. As I understand it, it's like sampling on the quantum level. Therefore you are actually hearing the singer. It's as real as any other recording, that is to say all recording is smoke and mirrors. Even the most documentary of recordings. You will find criticisms of authenticity and honesty going right back to the 1890s. Indeed it does. It depends on how much artificiality one is prepared to accept, and on one's definition of artificiality in the first place: when does human expression end and artificiality begin? It's all so incredibly objective subjective. [Oops] To be continued, no doubt!
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Apr 4, 2023 5:38:18 GMT -5
It really depends how you think about it. When you hear a recording of a voice, you are not actually hearing that person's voice, you are hearing a facsimile of it, rendered by grooves, iron filings, or 0s and 1s. The way the AI works is that the computer is fed many examples of the singer's voice. It can then use micro portions of these performances to construct new ones. As I understand it, it's like sampling on the quantum level. Therefore you are actually hearing the singer. It's as real as any other recording, that is to say all recording is smoke and mirrors. Even the most documentary of recordings. You will find criticisms of authenticity and honesty going right back to the 1890s. Indeed it does. It depends on how much artificiality one is prepared to accept, and on one's definition of artificiality in the first place: when does human expression end and artificiality begin? It's all so incredibly objective. To be continued, no doubt! I'd say more subjective. Tackling Joshilyn's thoughts on the separation of art from novelty / self gratification, I try to take a more pre-romantic view. This Beethovian view of art as self expression, often hard won from personal suffering still pervades my views of creativity. We never left the romantic age, and I have a real love / hate relationship with Beethoven because of this as it ultimately killed western art music in my opinion. This idea that a true artist strives for originality, that norms need to be challenged and destroyed led to music becoming inaccessible and full of elitist snobbery. We see it happen again in jazz, and then in rock. Look how elitist those genres became the moment 'art' became a consideration. Like the Roman Empire, the romantic age never really ended. So I try, but it's tough, because that narrative is very much at the heart of what draws many of us to Brian Wilson. It is central to his story. However, what draws me most to Brian's music happens at the compositional level. I like the nuts and bolts, I'm not an emotional listener. I get off on the counterpoint and the way his music slots together. When it comes to western art music, my tastes reflect this also, as I'm drawn far more to the Baroque, Renaissance and Medieval. The 'self gratification' comes during the high art periods that followed. Staying in the past, the idea of a named auteur, a composer, only really manifested once music began to be printed and there was cash to be made. It's really that simple. Before that, it was just anonymous job. I've also likened this AI voice swopping as quantum sampling. Go back to the 1980's, and read some of the arguments made against sampling. They are identical to a lot of the concerns raised on this thread. The irony is is that sampling principles lay at the heart of the birth of tonality in the 12th century. Florid Organum as popularised by our friends Leonin and Perotin, (yes, we have their names ironically) is literally built of sampled blocks of melody being manipulated. We also have examples of these developments being criticised as unnatural. Same shit, different century. Over time, genres and idioms become so standardised that they may as well be written by AI. All AI does is recycle norms and standard practices into new pieces. This is no different to most examples of any given genre written by humans. Bach never broke new ground, he just executed existing forms perfectly. However, then those rare figures come along who break things. This is your Brian Wilson. These people are rare, but they aren't going anywhere. Give someone like that the tool of AI, and they'll find a way to break it, and create something new. As yet, AI on its own cannot innovate. Yet. And really it just boils down to this. If AI writes a Brian Wilson style song, and sings it in a Brian Wilson voice, and that song touches people emotionally, then what is the difference? It's the end result that is important. Like the first bone flutes, it's just another tool. Beethoven has a lot to answer for.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Apr 4, 2023 6:15:16 GMT -5
Thank you for that. Of course, I meant subjective. (Stupid -- that comes from doing two things at once. ) What you say makes fascinating reading, IHA. At least we agree that Ludwig Van is a pivotal figure in music!
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Apr 4, 2023 6:25:20 GMT -5
Thank you for that. Of course, I meant subjective! (Stupid -- that comes from doing two things at once. ) What you say makes fascinating reading, IHA. At least we agree that Ludwig Van is a pivotal figure in music! Oh totally agree, Eroica and the late quartets have blown my mind for decades. He just made things difficult for everyone who came after him with all this 'suffering for you art' malarkey. Not his fault though. He is a perfect example of one of those people who breaks things.
|
|
|
Post by Will/P.P. on Apr 4, 2023 7:01:24 GMT -5
Doesn't sound like Brian to me.
|
|
|
Post by radiokingdom on Apr 4, 2023 8:50:22 GMT -5
Thanks for the post, ironhorseapples. Good historical context in there, new to me. I confess that, while I still largely agree with Joshilyn (why are we so interested in hearing a piece of software pretend Dennis is singing lead on whatever?), part of what I dislike here is a tendency among some for the last few months to treat chatbots (chatGPT) as some kind of oracle. Like, whatever output it generates is noteworthy simply because it was generated by something called chatGPT. I was told it wrote "good" poetry (it doesn't, not by any standard) and generated bibliographies (it generates fake bibliographies). That it "knew everything" -- it can't even summarize Wikipedia reliably. I know a couple together, non-crazy people on social media who regularly report what they asked chatGPT and what it said. Always with the same sense of triumph. Maybe I'm missing something, but why is fake information, written up pretty poorly, of such interest? It also bothers me that a bunch of apparently different pieces of software are now going under the general name "AI." Weren't there similar things before? Hasn't AI of different kinds been used for various scientific applications for years? Why does it seem like all of a sudden this "thing" is happening when it was there before? It seems to be focused on the hype around chatGPT. And hype is nothing new, but there's this worshipful attitude towards this particular hyped product... As to questions about authenticity going back to the 1890s, or "sampling" going back to the 12th century...point taken, but to be fair, maybe music would have been better had we not just gone whole-hog with those innovations. We don't know that we didn't swindle ourselves out of something awesome. I don't know. Back to the Beach Boys...when I got into them a quarter of a century ago, the Smile myth was still very strong. There was the GV box and Unsurpassed Masters, but it was much harder for the casual fan to get a hold of interviews, descriptions, everything. There was still a sense of "buried treasure" -- you really wanted to get at this lost thing. As was suggested to my by Joshilyn's post (not putting words in her mouth, these are my thoughts) -- there's a difference between wanting to hear something that has been preserved or found, something into which a lot of human effort went -- and wanting to hear something that someone generated with the aid of a piece of software where the work of the software is the whole draw. There's an emptiness to it. It sounds "good" (well, not that good) and that's that. There's no story behind it and never will be.
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Apr 4, 2023 10:08:24 GMT -5
As to questions about authenticity going back to the 1890s, or "sampling" going back to the 12th century...point taken, but to be fair, maybe music would have been better had we not just gone whole-hog with those innovations. We don't know that we didn't swindle ourselves out of something awesome. I suppose my point is that with each new innovation there is resistance. That's as old as innovation itself. Would music have been better without the ability to record, or the introduction of harmony in the 12th century? Possibly, but there would be no Beach Boys. I think a great example is the ability to multitrack. The first 'sound on sound' recordings were attempted back in the 1920's, where one disk was played back whilst another signal was played. The results were then captured onto a second disk. Les Paul was a great innovator in this field as I'm sure you know. It wasn't until tape though that this became an easier and truly non linear process. The idea that you could construct a recording out of separately recorded parts was seismic, but it was met with much consternation from many people as it was seen as, amongst many things: cheating, a dilution of performance and talent, unnatural, taking jobs away from musicians, and hoodwinking the listener. It was met with distrust amongst many older workers within the recording business, and it really took young minds such as Spector, Wilson and the Beatles to show how it could be used to create recordings that couldn't exist in the natural world. Of course there is a downside to it. Recordings started to take longer to make being one of them. Another example is the introduction of microphones back in the late 1920's. Laws were actually passed (by the BBC) to limit the use of singers on recordings as it was seen as decadent. The idea that a singer could be singing into your ear, so to speak was viewed as immoral. There are many first hand accounts of listeners actually having orgasms whilst listening. It was viewed as very improper, and the fear was that it would lead to a breakdown in society. These were very real concerns. So I am very mindful of not having a knee jerk reaction to new innovations. They are tools. Who knows where they will lead and what types of new music will arise from them. That is all in the hands of creative people who use them. One thing is for sure, progress happens despite people's fears and concerns. That progress is often unexpected and unpredictable, and our fears will be viewed as ridiculous by people 100 years from now. Anyway, I'm off to listen to Bing Crosby and bang out a few orgasms before dinner.
|
|
|
Post by Micha on Apr 4, 2023 11:07:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Micha on Apr 4, 2023 11:14:18 GMT -5
Unsuccessful joke. Should have been clearer. I disagree. I got the joke and found it found it very funny. Let me have a go at it myself: I think it is Brian Wilson himself behind this. He is personally financing the development of this software intending to use it on his next album. Just in case, I might add this:
|
|
west
Kahuna
Posts: 113
Likes: 105
|
Post by west on Apr 4, 2023 12:54:29 GMT -5
I've seen my comment about having a 'Dennis vocal on IJWMFTT' being brought up a few places here, and I just want to say that I thought it would only be interesting to hear. I wouldn't add it to any playlist or call it 'required listening.' I'd listen to it once or twice and probably leave it at that, as a curiosity. I was beginning to feel like I had something wrong here a couple of days ago. The original Brian-led track is still the definitive version for me... Anyways, back to the discussion!
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Apr 4, 2023 15:24:01 GMT -5
Guy just doesn't know when to stop. Shark well and truly jumped in a classic example of "because I can". In this instance, replacing a perfectly acceptable BW vocal with something that sounds nothing like him. As for The Ronettes...
|
|
|
Post by debonbon on Apr 4, 2023 17:52:28 GMT -5
Guy just doesn't know when to stop. Shark well and truly jumped in a classic example of "because I can". In this instance, replacing a perfectly acceptable BW vocal with something that sounds nothing like him. As for The Ronettes... if you hate this stuff so much why do you keep looking for more and posting it? I don’t understand.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Apr 5, 2023 0:20:10 GMT -5
I'm so, so sorry. Two things I didn't realise: one, that I had to request your permission to post this... and two that I can't air my opinion of a BB-related matter on a BB forum.
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Apr 5, 2023 2:29:45 GMT -5
I'm so, so sorry. Two things I didn't realise: one, that I had to request your permission to post this... and two that I can't air my opinion of a BB-related matter on a BB forum. On this thread you're like Mary Whitehouse videotaping all four channels in search of a bare boob. Come on, it's funny
|
|