|
Post by Awesoman on Feb 27, 2024 9:30:56 GMT -5
... and the difference between AI singalong and real BB vocals is right there screaming in your face. It defies logic to tamper with a recording such as this one after Brian himself, has made this type of commentary. Fixing Brian's work? I don't think so. Now if there are clear gaps, in flawed tracks, that tweaking can enhance, that is one thing. This is not that. Unless I'm mistaken I believe the Dae Lims' version is just a stereo extraction; I don't think he added anything to it himself. I'm assuming he used an AI tool to separate the tracks similar to how they have been doing this with the Beatles remixes. I do notice that the instrumentation during Mike's first spoken line appears to be unedited; similar to how Brian's band performed it at the Roxy theater. Can anyone confirm if the vocals or anything else in the recording are manufactured?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 27, 2024 10:00:02 GMT -5
It defies logic to tamper with a recording such as this one after Brian himself, has made this type of commentary. Fixing Brian's work? I don't think so. Now if there are clear gaps, in flawed tracks, that tweaking can enhance, that is one thing. This is not that. Unless I'm mistaken I believe the Dae Lims' version is just a stereo extraction; I don't think he added anything to it himself. I'm assuming he used an AI tool to separate the tracks similar to how they have been doing this with the Beatles remixes. I do notice that the instrumentation during Mike's first spoken line appears to be unedited; similar to how Brian's band performed it at the Roxy theater. Can anyone confirm if the vocals or anything else in the recording are manufactured? This stuff is not my wheelhouse except as it regards intellectual property. If there is a compelling reason for the artists, such as the Beatles' Now and Then because, at a point 3, including George worked on John's track, and then Ringo and Paul finishing it, using all kinds of tech, including film clips. It was their own work that they tweaked. The compelling reason is that two were deceased and "unavailable" to work on it. But, I'm not sure that it is, or will be their "last work" and only a teaser to put out, to get the reaction/response to the tech married to the track that Yoko provided. This is the kind of stuff for artists and surrogates to work on. Not for others to tweak and monetize on YouTube or some other platform. If you want to publish music, write your own. Brian said it was close to California Girls in terms of vocal quality. I'm not arguing with Brian Wilson.
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Feb 27, 2024 10:27:38 GMT -5
Unless I'm mistaken I believe the Dae Lims' version is just a stereo extraction; I don't think he added anything to it himself. I'm assuming he used an AI tool to separate the tracks similar to how they have been doing this with the Beatles remixes. I do notice that the instrumentation during Mike's first spoken line appears to be unedited; similar to how Brian's band performed it at the Roxy theater. Can anyone confirm if the vocals or anything else in the recording are manufactured? This stuff is not my wheelhouse except as it regards intellectual property. If there is a compelling reason for the artists, such as the Beatles' Now and Then because, at a point 3, including George worked on John's track, and then Ringo and Paul finishing it, using all kinds of tech, including film clips. It was their own work that they tweaked. The compelling reason is that two were deceased and "unavailable" to work on it. But, I'm not sure that it is, or will be their "last work" and only a teaser to put out, to get the reaction/response to the tech married to the track that Yoko provided. This is the kind of stuff for artists and surrogates to work on. Not for others to tweak and monetize on YouTube or some other platform. If you want to publish music, write your own. Brian said it was close to California Girls in terms of vocal quality. I'm not arguing with Brian Wilson. I'm not sure I fully understand your point. I'm pretty sure this mix is just a stereo extraction of the original song that happens to be done by a fan using AI technology to separate and isolate the tracks. Other than the one edit I pointed out I don't believe Dae Lims added anything to the mix (such as his own vocals - but again I'm fine with being proven wrong on that). And this is nothing new as folks have shared all kinds of personal edits and "fan mixes" for ages (hell, think of the legions of 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝐿𝐸 fan mixes alone that people have been making for decades). And unless the guy has a Patreon account I'm unaware of I don't believe Dae Lims is directly monetizing these creations; he's certainly not at least doing it through YouTube with all the copyrighted material he's playing with (and YouTube has shut a lot of his stuff down). Not really trying to defend AI either as I totally get the controversy behind it. However there seems to be a lot of confusion over the various ways on how the technology can be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 27, 2024 10:54:35 GMT -5
This stuff is not my wheelhouse except as it regards intellectual property. If there is a compelling reason for the artists, such as the Beatles' Now and Then because, at a point 3, including George worked on John's track, and then Ringo and Paul finishing it, using all kinds of tech, including film clips. It was their own work that they tweaked. The compelling reason is that two were deceased and "unavailable" to work on it. But, I'm not sure that it is, or will be their "last work" and only a teaser to put out, to get the reaction/response to the tech married to the track that Yoko provided. This is the kind of stuff for artists and surrogates to work on. Not for others to tweak and monetize on YouTube or some other platform. If you want to publish music, write your own. Brian said it was close to California Girls in terms of vocal quality. I'm not arguing with Brian Wilson. I'm not sure I fully understand your point. I'm pretty sure this mix is just a stereo extraction of the original song that happens to be done by a fan using AI technology to separate and isolate the tracks. Other than the one edit I pointed out I don't believe Dae Lims added anything to the mix (such as his own vocals - but again I'm fine with being proven wrong on that). And this is nothing new as folks have shared all kinds of personal edits and "fan mixes" for ages (hell, think of the legions of 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝐿𝐸 fan mixes alone that people have been making for decades). And unless the guy has a Patreon account I'm unaware of I don't believe Dae Lims is directly monetizing these creations; he's certainly not at least doing it through YouTube with all the copyrighted material he's playing with (and YouTube has shut a lot of his stuff down). Not really trying to defend AI either as I totally get the controversy behind it. However there seems to be a lot of confusion over the various ways on how the technology can be implemented. If you go back to the earlier pages in the thread, like the first 10 pages, you will see that RAII or the Universal or other group has pulled down the content. I'm dealing with two propositions. One, the Beatles are using tech to reconstruct a vision of what all 4 might have done. They own it so they can exploit it. Two, is the ownership issue. The intellectual property. It belongs to someone else, either the composer or their assignees to use it for a term-of-years. There is a controversy because right now the law isn't completely clear on AI and how to regulate it, to balance the interests of the ownership rights v. those who are making adaptations to the original works. How will "mixes" be construed? Who knows? AI in the hands of the owners can be a great thing such as in The Beatles. And if they could find a way to get Dennis on SOS for example, for fans. Maybe in the hands of others, there is tech advancement but there is also monetization at play here when people click and the ads get traction, unless certain accounts have been demonetized. Hope I made that distinction clearly. 🤷♀️
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Feb 27, 2024 11:29:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure I fully understand your point. I'm pretty sure this mix is just a stereo extraction of the original song that happens to be done by a fan using AI technology to separate and isolate the tracks. Other than the one edit I pointed out I don't believe Dae Lims added anything to the mix (such as his own vocals - but again I'm fine with being proven wrong on that). And this is nothing new as folks have shared all kinds of personal edits and "fan mixes" for ages (hell, think of the legions of 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝐿𝐸 fan mixes alone that people have been making for decades). And unless the guy has a Patreon account I'm unaware of I don't believe Dae Lims is directly monetizing these creations; he's certainly not at least doing it through YouTube with all the copyrighted material he's playing with (and YouTube has shut a lot of his stuff down). Not really trying to defend AI either as I totally get the controversy behind it. However there seems to be a lot of confusion over the various ways on how the technology can be implemented. If you go back to the earlier pages in the thread, like the first 10 pages, you will see that RAII or the Universal or other group has pulled down the content. I'm dealing with two propositions. One, the Beatles are using tech to reconstruct a vision of what all 4 might have done. They own it so they can exploit it. Two, is the ownership issue. The intellectual property. It belongs to someone else, either the composer or their assignees to use it for a term-of-years. There is a controversy because right now the law isn't completely clear on AI and how to regulate it, to balance the interests of the ownership rights v. those who are making adaptations to the original works. How will "mixes" be construed? Who knows? AI in the hands of the owners can be a great thing such as in The Beatles. And if they could find a way to get Dennis on SOS for example, for fans. Maybe in the hands of others, there is tech advancement but there is also monetization at play here when people click and the ads get traction, unless certain accounts have been demonetized. Hope I made that distinction clearly. 🤷♀️ Pretty sure we're both on the same page in terms of the legality and regulation questions of this kind of material. That being said, it's rather doubtful that any of this stuff is being monetized at least under YouTube's watchful eye based on their rigid policies. Considering they've already knocked down a handful of Dae Lims' creations I don't think he's benefitting financially over his channel (of course I could be wrong). So I'm simply looking at these songs for what they are: fan creations using new technology. And as I said previously, fan creations of an artist's work is nothing new. The gray area is the technology itself and how it could be misused.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 27, 2024 11:51:22 GMT -5
If you go back to the earlier pages in the thread, like the first 10 pages, you will see that RAII or the Universal or other group has pulled down the content. I'm dealing with two propositions. One, the Beatles are using tech to reconstruct a vision of what all 4 might have done. They own it so they can exploit it. Two, is the ownership issue. The intellectual property. It belongs to someone else, either the composer or their assignees to use it for a term-of-years. There is a controversy because right now the law isn't completely clear on AI and how to regulate it, to balance the interests of the ownership rights v. those who are making adaptations to the original works. How will "mixes" be construed? Who knows? AI in the hands of the owners can be a great thing such as in The Beatles. And if they could find a way to get Dennis on SOS for example, for fans. Maybe in the hands of others, there is tech advancement but there is also monetization at play here when people click and the ads get traction, unless certain accounts have been demonetized. Hope I made that distinction clearly. 🤷♀️ Pretty sure we're both on the same page in terms of the legality and regulation questions of this kind of material. That being said, it's rather doubtful that any of this stuff is being monetized at least under YouTube's watchful eye based on their rigid policies. Considering they've already knocked down a handful of Dae Lims' creations I don't think he's benefitting financially over his channel (of course I could be wrong). So I'm simply looking at these songs for what they are: fan creations using new technology. And as I said previously, fan creations of an artist's work is nothing new. The gray area is the technology itself and how it could be misused. This is not about any individual AI content creator - or remix creator. It is about the copyrighted tracks being used and adapted on a quasi-commercial platform. Fans using new tech become experts at what they do in creating content. And when the whole IP and AI disputes are settled with clear and unambiguous standards, then, the guidelines will be established. I see one role in perfecting work that is already released, as new types of enhanced releases, with some of the human warts left in, like the "shunshine" left in...because that outtake is still charming to me...if that makes any sense...
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Feb 27, 2024 12:13:59 GMT -5
Pretty sure we're both on the same page in terms of the legality and regulation questions of this kind of material. That being said, it's rather doubtful that any of this stuff is being monetized at least under YouTube's watchful eye based on their rigid policies. Considering they've already knocked down a handful of Dae Lims' creations I don't think he's benefitting financially over his channel (of course I could be wrong). So I'm simply looking at these songs for what they are: fan creations using new technology. And as I said previously, fan creations of an artist's work is nothing new. The gray area is the technology itself and how it could be misused. This is not about any individual AI content creator - or remix creator. It is about the copyrighted tracks being used and adapted on a quasi-commercial platform. Fans using new tech become experts at what they do in creating content. And when the whole IP and AI disputes are settled with clear and unambiguous guidelines, then, the guidelines will be established. I see one role in perfecting work that is already released, as new types of enhanced releases, with some of the human warts left in, like the "shunshine" left in...because that outtake is still charming to me...if that makes any sense... I think I get you...in terms of commercial use there are numerous ways AI can be implemented particularly going forward. The technology is already being used to create successful stereo extractions of older music with lost or incomplete multitracks. Which I'm completely on board with. Or it can be used to correct any inadequacies in a particular recording (which I would take case-by-case). As for using AI to straight-up create a "faux" performance from an existing artist (such as an AI Dennis Wilson covering "Sail On, Sailor" with artificial vocals for example), I would actually be opposed to that if it were *commercially* released as it wouldn't be authentic. But if a talented fan wants to do it as a fan creation strictly for fun without the direct intention of benefiting financially (especially without the artist's consent)? I'd probably treat it the same way I'd view any other fan creation or bootleg.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 27, 2024 12:43:35 GMT -5
This is not about any individual AI content creator - or remix creator. It is about the copyrighted tracks being used and adapted on a quasi-commercial platform. Fans using new tech become experts at what they do in creating content. And when the whole IP and AI disputes are settled with clear and unambiguous guidelines, then, the guidelines will be established. I see one role in perfecting work that is already released, as new types of enhanced releases, with some of the human warts left in, like the "shunshine" left in ...because that outtake is still charming to me...if that makes any sense... I think I get you...in terms of commercial use there are numerous ways AI can be implemented particularly going forward. The technology is already being used to create successful stereo extractions of older music with lost or incomplete multitracks. Which I'm completely on board with. Or it can be used to correct any inadequacies in a particular recording (which I would take case-by-case). As for using AI to straight-up create a "faux" performance from an existing artist (such as an AI Dennis Wilson covering "Sail On, Sailor" with artificial vocals for example), I would actually be opposed to that if it were *commercially* released as it wouldn't be authentic. But if a talented fan wants to do it as a fan creation strictly for fun without the direct intention of benefiting financially (especially without the artist's consent)? I'd probably treat it the same way I'd view any other fan creation or bootleg. Almost. For SOS - not create a new Dennis voice, because that is gross and offensive, but find his voice prints with his syllabication and intonation. There are plenty of Dennis' recordings. The emphasis would be that it benefit the band/Dennis' heirs, and not some independent recording hijacker for profit. Or whomever is the assignee of the work. Among them, extract his, for those words and phrases and with BB stuff, most don't have a whole lead but a speaker and a respondent, or a whole refrain section. So, Dennis' voice might be combined with whoever is doing the co-lead. In some songs, there were 3 singers for verse/chorus.
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Feb 27, 2024 13:02:26 GMT -5
I think I get you...in terms of commercial use there are numerous ways AI can be implemented particularly going forward. The technology is already being used to create successful stereo extractions of older music with lost or incomplete multitracks. Which I'm completely on board with. Or it can be used to correct any inadequacies in a particular recording (which I would take case-by-case). As for using AI to straight-up create a "faux" performance from an existing artist (such as an AI Dennis Wilson covering "Sail On, Sailor" with artificial vocals for example), I would actually be opposed to that if it were *commercially* released as it wouldn't be authentic. But if a talented fan wants to do it as a fan creation strictly for fun without the direct intention of benefiting financially (especially without the artist's consent)? I'd probably treat it the same way I'd view any other fan creation or bootleg. Almost. For SOS - not create a new Dennis voice, because that is gross and offensive, but find his voice prints with his syllabication and intonation. There are plenty of Dennis' recordings. Among them, extract his, for those words and phrases and with BB stuff, most don't have a whole lead but a speaker and a respondent, or a whole refrain section. So, Dennis' voice might be combined with whoever is doing the co-lead. In some songs, there were 3 singers for verse/chorus. You mean using his voice samples from his other recordings and fly them into the song adjusting pitch and intonation? In all honesty I'm not sure AI could be implemented that way conventionally (at least currently) but an interesting idea nonetheless. However it isn't that far removed from throwing Dennis's voice into an AI voice generator and training it to convert any vocal into his voice. Neither option would truly be authentic.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 27, 2024 13:12:37 GMT -5
Almost. For SOS - not create a new Dennis voice, because that is gross and offensive, but find his voice prints with his syllabication and intonation. There are plenty of Dennis' recordings. Among them, extract his, for those words and phrases and with BB stuff, most don't have a whole lead but a speaker and a respondent, or a whole refrain section. So, Dennis' voice might be combined with whoever is doing the co-lead. In some songs, there were 3 singers for verse/chorus. You mean using his voice samples from his other recordings and fly them into the song adjusting pitch and intonation? In all honesty I'm not sure AI could be implemented that way conventionally (at least currently) but an interesting idea nonetheless. However it isn't that far removed from throwing Dennis's voice into an AI voice generator and training it to convert any vocal into his voice. Neither option would truly be authentic. So that is above my pay grade. They already have pitch correction, don't they? Authentic would be Dennis' voice but he is "unavailable" as is John Lennon, although they maybe had more to work with, since they were John's tapes. I don't doubt that at some point, someone could figure out how to fly-in Dennis' voice. It is probably just a matter of time. The question is probably if they use it as a guideline - as in the Vanna White case, the right to exploit "personalty" - that uniqueness of look (and voice.) Probably, his heirs would own whatever benefit resulted. And, not to a content creator, who made modifications to something already in existence. It is not like Mozart or Beethoven, already in the public domain.
|
|
|
Post by radiantradish on Feb 27, 2024 15:24:38 GMT -5
Pretty sure Dae Lims checks out this board as he’s referenced some comments in his discussion videos.
The guy is an exceptionally talented audio engineer and huge Beach Boys fan. The Little Girl I Once New track is just a remix using AI extraction, not AI voice models. And to me it sounds fantastic. I also happen to love his AI vocal work as a “what if” exercise.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 27, 2024 15:32:36 GMT -5
Pretty sure Dae Lims checks out this board as he’s referenced some comments in his discussion videos. The guy is an exceptionally talented audio engineer and huge Beach Boys fan. The Little Girl I Once New track is just a remix using AI extraction, not AI voice models. And to me it sounds fantastic. I also happen to love his AI vocal work as a “what if” exercise. This is not about Dae Lims. It is about the AI process and how we distinguish between the owners of the original tracks and those who are adapting it, and re-publishing it, notwithstanding the skill and creativity involved in the process. Figuring out the rights involved is a tricky process. That song was my first foot in the door (coup de foudre) for this music. It is a powerful song, great vocals and so tightly arranged. And Brian acknowledged it. It was great to see it covered so well recently. I had always thought that song was treated like an orphan with no home because it was not on an LP, for a really long time. It is the Wild West right now in this AI infancy stage but if things are getting pulled down, someone looking at IP issues is paying attention while the debate goes on.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Feb 27, 2024 18:18:56 GMT -5
Pretty sure Dae Lims checks out this board as he’s referenced some comments in his discussion videos. The guy is an exceptionally talented audio engineer and huge Beach Boys fan. The Little Girl I Once New track is just a remix using AI extraction, not AI voice models. And to me it sounds fantastic. I also happen to love his AI vocal work as a “what if” exercise. I agree. Because the vocals are the originals. And that makes all the difference to me.
|
|
|
Post by radiantradish on Feb 27, 2024 21:16:31 GMT -5
Pretty sure Dae Lims checks out this board as he’s referenced some comments in his discussion videos. The guy is an exceptionally talented audio engineer and huge Beach Boys fan. The Little Girl I Once New track is just a remix using AI extraction, not AI voice models. And to me it sounds fantastic. I also happen to love his AI vocal work as a “what if” exercise. I agree. Because the vocals are the originals. And that makes all the difference to me. Jai Guru Dev! Ai am that…
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Feb 29, 2024 10:55:04 GMT -5
Of all the dumb things I've ever heard about the band by a fan, this one takes the cake: I've been told that someone has asked for a 1964 BW vocal on "Midnight's Another Day", a concept that elevates inane to a whole new level. The whole point of "MAD" is that of experience gained over the years and Brian's weathered 65-year-old vocal is just perfect. A 22-year-old voice would be utterly incongruous.
|
|
ryankc
Dude/Dudette
Posts: 97
Likes: 175
|
Post by ryankc on Feb 29, 2024 20:52:34 GMT -5
Of all the dumb things I've ever heard about the band by a fan, this one takes the cake: I've been told that someone has asked for a 1964 BW vocal on "Midnight's Another Day", a concept that elevates inane to a whole new level. The whole point of "MAD" is that of experience gained over the years and Brian's weathered 65-year-old vocal is just perfect. A 22-year-old voice would be utterly incongruous. I think this sums up why I don't like these AI projects. Why do we have to imagine Love You, BW88, TLOS, etc as 1960s songs with 1960s voices? It's annoying. Accept the work as is from any artist. View them as flawed humans, who age, change, and evolve with time.
|
|
|
Post by radiantradish on Mar 2, 2024 5:43:02 GMT -5
This is where I don’t agree. Personally I’d be interested to hear MAD in a late 60s style. It wouldn’t replace MAD but I’d find it interesting to listen to.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Mar 2, 2024 6:50:09 GMT -5
Of all the dumb things I've ever heard about the band by a fan, this one takes the cake: I've been told that someone has asked for a 1964 BW vocal on "Midnight's Another Day", a concept that elevates inane to a whole new level. The whole point of "MAD" is that of experience gained over the years and Brian's weathered 65-year-old vocal is just perfect. A 22-year-old voice would be utterly incongruous. I think this sums up why I don't like these AI projects. Why do we have to imagine Love You, BW88, TLOS, etc as 1960s songs with 1960s voices? It's annoying. Accept the work as is from any artist. View them as flawed humans, who age, change, and evolve with time. And it is retrospective - looking in the rear view mirror.
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Mar 2, 2024 13:21:16 GMT -5
This is where I don’t agree. Personally I’d be interested to hear MAD in a late 60s style. It wouldn’t replace MAD but I’d find it interesting to listen to. While I certainly get the dissent people have against these AI creations and can't really argue with their take (nor am I even trying to), it is easier to digest these creations when you simply approach them frivolously. Would it make sense emotionally or contextually hearing an artificial young Brian tackle a song like "Midnight's Another Day"? No probably not. But if someone wanted to make it anyway just to hear what it might hypothetically sound like, I could take a listen to it without taking it too seriously or personally. If Dae Lims wanted to ditch the AI Generator and just use his natural voice I’d be fine with that too. If anything what I appreciate most about his stuff is his talented arranging skills even more than the AI tech itself. What he did with the Beach Boys' unfinished "Walk On By" cover as well as Paul McCartney's Beatles-ized "Return To Pepperland" were quite stellar. And I'd argue Dae Lims is the only one out there I've seen that's actually putting the technology to creative use.
|
|
|
Post by radiantradish on Mar 2, 2024 17:00:31 GMT -5
This is where I don’t agree. Personally I’d be interested to hear MAD in a late 60s style. It wouldn’t replace MAD but I’d find it interesting to listen to. While I certainly get the dissent people have against these AI creations and can't really argue with their take (nor am I even trying to), it is easier to digest these creations when you simply approach them frivolously. Would it make sense emotionally or contextually hearing an artificial young Brian tackle a song like "Midnight's Another Day"? No probably not. But if someone wanted to make it anyway just to hear what it might hypothetically sound like, I could take a listen to it without taking it too seriously or personally. If Dae Lims wanted to ditch the AI Generator and just use his natural voice I’d be fine with that too. If anything what I appreciate most about his stuff is his talented arranging skills even more than the AI tech itself. What he did with the Beach Boys' unfinished "Walk On By" cover as well as Paul McCartney's Beatles-ized "Return To Pepperland" were quite stellar. And I'd argue Dae Lims is the only one out there I've seen that's actually putting the technology to creative use. Yes you’re right. Dae Lims is hugely talented in his own right which makes the use of AI more interesting. Most AI creations are pretty rough b
|
|
|
Post by Micha on Mar 15, 2024 11:56:06 GMT -5
Of all the dumb things I've ever heard about the band by a fan, this one takes the cake: I've been told that someone has asked for a 1964 BW vocal on "Midnight's Another Day", a concept that elevates inane to a whole new level. The whole point of "MAD" is that of experience gained over the years and Brian's weathered 65-year-old vocal is just perfect. A 22-year-old voice would be utterly incongruous. I think this sums up why I don't like these AI projects. Why do we have to imagine Love You, BW88, TLOS, etc as 1960s songs with 1960s voices? It's annoying. Accept the work as is from any artist. View them as flawed humans, who age, change, and evolve with time. Why? Because it's sometimes interesting to hear how these tracks would sound if their voices hadn't deteriorated so much, especially Brian's and Dennis's. Also, I'd like them to tackle Mike's voice from his creepy phase from 1978 on and make him sound like he did, say, 5 or 8 years earlier. And we don't have to "accept the work as is", we can make up our own minds on any work. Even though personally I'm actually not that interested in hearing "MAD" with a younger sounding Brian, I'm not annoyed when somebody tries it.
|
|
msuts
Grommet
Posts: 6
Likes: 6
|
Post by msuts on Mar 15, 2024 12:53:28 GMT -5
I think this sums up why I don't like these AI projects. Why do we have to imagine Love You, BW88, TLOS, etc as 1960s songs with 1960s voices? It's annoying. Accept the work as is from any artist. View them as flawed humans, who age, change, and evolve with time. Why? Because it's sometimes interesting to hear how these tracks would sound if their voices hadn't deteriorated so much, especially Brian's and Dennis's. Also, I'd like them to tackle Mike's voice from his creepy phase from 1978 on and make him sound like he did, say, 5 or 8 years earlier. And we don't have to "accept the work as is", we can make up our own minds on any work. Even though personally I'm actually not that interested in hearing "MAD" with a younger sounding Brian, I'm not annoyed when somebody tries it. This is exactly how I've been feeling the whole time. But you said it a lot nicer than I would have.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Mar 15, 2024 13:23:37 GMT -5
Happily it hasn't reached the point where we have to listen to this contrived stuff, Clockwork Orange-style. Hopefully it will never reach that point.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck's rewind on Mar 15, 2024 13:53:07 GMT -5
Of all the dumb things I've ever heard about the band by a fan, this one takes the cake: I've been told that someone has asked for a 1964 BW vocal on "Midnight's Another Day", a concept that elevates inane to a whole new level. The whole point of "MAD" is that of experience gained over the years and Brian's weathered 65-year-old vocal is just perfect. A 22-year-old voice would be utterly incongruous. Or read on the SSMB .... Chuck’s post me thinks ? ‘ takes the cake’
|
|
|
Post by E on Mar 15, 2024 18:46:56 GMT -5
"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."
Kinda blows your mind does it? That's assuming an awful lot. Why does this guy have to be like this and then roll over and over in it, like a dog in another dog's shit? What is he? Five or something? So someone doesn't like this? But clearly some do, even, dare I say it, "On the forum where they pat themselves on the back daily for their supposed positivity and inclusion." Is it not possible for some people to hold different opinions? Because, at the end of the day, that's all it is. Nothing more. I think even someone like him can read this forum and see Dae Lims isn't getting completely 'shellacked.' Guess rubbing salt in an imagined wound is better than taking time out to actually read people's comments.
|
|