Sir Paul McCartney Says AI Has Enabled a 'Final' Beatles Song (bbc.com) 56
Sir Paul McCartney says he has employed AI to help create what he calls "the final Beatles record." From a report: He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the technology had been used to "extricate" John Lennon's voice from an old demo so he could complete the song. "We just finished it up and it'll be released this year," he explained.
Sir Paul did not name the song, but it is likely to be a 1978 Lennon composition called Now And Then. It had already been considered as a possible "reunion song" for the Beatles in 1995, as they were compiling their career-spanning Anthology series. Sir Paul had received the demo a year earlier from Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. It was one of several songs on a cassette labelled "For Paul" that Lennon had made shortly before his death in 1980. Lo-fi and embryonic, the tracks were largely recorded onto a boombox as the musician sat at a piano in his New York apartment.
Sir Paul did not name the song, but it is likely to be a 1978 Lennon composition called Now And Then. It had already been considered as a possible "reunion song" for the Beatles in 1995, as they were compiling their career-spanning Anthology series. Sir Paul had received the demo a year earlier from Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. It was one of several songs on a cassette labelled "For Paul" that Lennon had made shortly before his death in 1980. Lo-fi and embryonic, the tracks were largely recorded onto a boombox as the musician sat at a piano in his New York apartment.
Done before... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is basically the same thing that was done in the 1990s when they released Lenon's "Free as a bird" with the Beetles anthology. No AI really required. Back then they used then nascent digital enhancement and remixing to turn a rough demo tape Lennon made into a polished record. I suppose the only possible difference with this one is if they used AI to make Lennon sing words he had not actually sung in the demo tape as essentially a deep fake (rather than just cutting up the words he actually did sing like they did in the 90s).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the full article basically describes it as better filtering from computers to isolate the vocal track, and possibly a better track than was available in 1990. The title is hugely click bait, and he even goes into how deep fakes are not something he's familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
So you say it has done before by bringing up a loosely related event a few decades ago, and then proceed to explain precisely why this is new. Or at least new for the Beatles, since AI has been used for deep fakes for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't like the vocal sound on "Bird", it still had that in-the-restroom sound of John's rough demo it was built around. I'd personally like to hear it "cleaned up" with modern approaches.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't have the technology in the 1990s to fill out the vocals. Jeff Lynne and the engineer performed a minor miracle in managing to get rid of the glitchiness of the original cassette. Normally, with a thin vocal, they would have overdubbed another matching vocal (John was very big on this back on double tracked vocals back in the day), but I'll wager with the poor quality of even the "repaired" vocal recording, and the fact that the piano was also on the track (there was no real way at the time to s
Re: (Score:1)
Note that I'm not criticizing the effort put into the 90's version, only saying now that we have better tools, let's use them to get closer to the (current) Beatles' vision of the song.
Re:Done before... (Score:4, Informative)
I think it was a pretty astounding achievement for the time, even if the result wasn't perfect. That's probably the most significant advantage of AI, even when you have multiple instruments on a single track, it can recreate each individual instrument and vocal. That's what was used for the new remix of Revolver. Up until the White Album sessions in 1968, George Martin and his engineers would record the instruments and vocals on different tracks and then bounce them down, so individual tracks contained multiple instruments and/or vocals. Remasters would still in many cases have to deal with these tapes with bounced down tracks, so it limited remixing.
And this is where we enter the dangerous territory of "original vision". Up until the White Album sessions, pretty much everything was planned around 4 track consoles and tape machines, and bouncing things down. Even achieving Sgt. Pepper, with its amazing soundscape, was still planned out, recorded, mixed and mastered on that equipment. If The Beatles had had, say, 24 or 48 track consoles, or, with modern digital equipment, an almost unlimited number of tracks available, would they have done it the same at all? Maybe Tomorrow Never Knows would have had a legion of chanting Tibetan monks instead of Paul's tape loops.
And let's remember what AI is doing here isn't simply repairing poor original recordings, it's taking the information in those recordings and essentially creating a new performance. I'm not saying it doesn't work, the Get Back film demonstrates the power of the technique, but we're left with the trickier question. If we take some crapped out 1970s-era cassette tape of some artist making a home demo and AI reconstructs it, are we actually listening to the artist at all?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this would be more authentic if the estate of Harrison contributed unreleased George guitar from an unrelated project as a mashup of the 4 musicians.
Re: (Score:1)
And on the "Bird" (Charlie Parker) soundtrack (1988) - https://www.allmusic.com/album... [allmusic.com] the did the same thing. Extracted Bird's saxophone and had a band record tracks to go with the songs he was playing.
Re: (Score:3)
There were still pretty sharp limits to what they could do to extract Lennon's vocals at the time, and as I recall, they never really extracted the vocals, they worked with the piano and vocals (it was from a one track cassette). They varispeeded the demo to get a consistent tempo and time, then Paul laid down a piano track to match john's, as well as a vocal track to "fill out" the original demo's vocals. They added to the song pretty significantly as well, with a bridge (as I recall the demo didn't have o
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the fundamental problem is anything that was truly their best work was turned into a proper record a very long time ago. Every artist has some less successful efforts. Those are usually never widely released. Even if "Free as a Bird' had been a very high quality recording, the song itself was nowhere close to being Lennon's best work.
The Beatles are amazing (Score:2)
Re:The Beatles are amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Beatles are amazing (Score:5, Funny)
"Let me mod you down
'Cause I'm going to, strawperson fields
Nothing is real
Yet something I got hung about
Neg strawperson mods forever
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all I see
It's getting hard to beat someone
but it'll force it out
It's a big matter to me
[chorus]
Always, no it's never me
But I know when you are dreaming
I think I know, I mean a... yes
But you're always wrong
That is, I know I disagree
Let me mod you down
'Cause I'm going to, strawperson fields...
Re: (Score:2)
Beatles are amazing. Paul McCartney is an annoying old man.
Re: The Beatles are amazing (Score:1)
Woulda Coulda Shoulda (Score:2)
> and bless John for leaving behind a special gift for Paul
The financial and IP squabbles got nasty over the breakup, so it's indeed nice to see a kind of musical apology.
While everyone tries to pin the breakup blame on a specific individual, there's lots of hints that they all were itching to go their own way anyhow, even George, who was growing prolific in the late 60's.
There's one studio recording of John and George discussing a contractual way to put out individual albums without outright breaking u
Re: (Score:2)
People don't seem to realize how young they were at the time. There were all 29 or 30 years old at the time of the breakup. Having gained that much fame and influence all before turning 30. It's a wonder they held together that long.
Re: (Score:1)
They grew up in a poor neighborhood where one couldn't survive without cooperation. I suspect that was a large part of their bonding.
For example, if they didn't have a buddy with them, their musical instruments would get stolen or broken on the way to the studio via bus.
Another time on the bus to a pre-fame concert, the windows had been broken out such that ice-cold air poured in. They survived the cold by huddling up, a Beatle Sandwich (Yellow Submarine Sandwich?)
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite Album of theirs is Revolver. The early pop stuff doesn't do much for me but when they started getting more experimental it's fantastic. It was a bit mind blowing to hear The Chemical Brothers song Let Forever Be https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] before finding out it's a take on Tomorrow Never Knows https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find Revolver a far more even effort. Pepper's cultural impact was enormous, I remember one journalist describing as a very brief moment when the 1960s underground and counterculture and the mainstream met. It was something of an accident that Pepper came out right at the beginning of the Summer of Love. And certainly it had some amazing moments, with A Day In The Life certainly ranking in my books in the top five or six greatest Beatles songs.
But Revolver is a masterpiece, a stunningly even record with v
Mull of Kyntire... (Score:1)
We are not worthy.
No George? No Ringo? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that Ringo is still alive. (And he's NOT the Walrus.) Maybe he'll contribute some drumming. He could probably do it in his home studio if he's not up to travelling. The editor/producer can sync it in.
(Baby I'm) amazed at all the energy Paul still has. He must drink Shatner Coffee...or Shatner Tea.
Re: (Score:2)
(Baby I'm) amazed at all the energy Paul still has. He must drink Shatner Coffee...or Shatner Tea.
Paul got a blood transfusion from the Vampire Keith Richards, so he's good to go for another 100 years.. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
But I'm not convinced Keith is actually alive, at least not in the usual sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Heard In the Stones recording studio, on the headphone monotor-
CLUNK “Foockin hell”
“What happened”
“its Keef, his arms fell off, all them little ‘oles joined togever”
What do you mean Ringo? (Score:2)
What do you mean Ringo? Meh, I gave up on the Beatles when they let go of Pete Best! It's not been the "Complete Beatles" since '62!
Just in time before all the Boomers pass (Score:1)
It's important for him to get this shlock out now, before his principle audience dies out completely and/or is physically unable to find new material anymore. Though - given the demographic of Beatles fans, it's likely most of them won't even hear this song unless it plays endlessly on the radio for the next year+.
Which, it probably will. And anyone working in the trade fields (where they often have radio on in the background) will suffer for it.
I also doubt it will be the "last" Beatles songs. You'll have
Re: (Score:1)
> I also doubt it will be the "last" Beatles songs. You'll have people using old Beatles recordings and feeding the voices into AI to synthesize
I believe they meant last Beatle song sanctioned by the Beatles.
Re: Just in time before all the Boomers pass (Score:1)
Re: Just in time before all the Boomers pass (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Personal opinion: the Beatles are the most insipid, obnoxious band in the past 80 years. Their music is derivative, the lyrics simplistic, and the tunes are mindless jingles which get stuck in your head because every radio station plays like 5 of them... over, and over, and over. They're right up there with Nickelback, Creed and Metallica for "most hated bands".
I said what I said, and I'll accept the karma hit for it.
Hot take happening right here. The early stuff was pop music for the radio but the techniques and experimentation they did on Sergeant Pepper forever changed how albums were recorded. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/01... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Their music is derivative, the lyrics simplistic, and the tunes are mindless jingles which get stuck in your head because every radio station plays like 5 of them... over, and over, and over.
About the only point of agreement I can find here is that they were over-played at some point, especially during the 70s and 80s; but these days you'll barely hear them on those stupid Clear Channel stations, and you have to seek them out.
All music is "derivative" so what does that even mean? As for the tunes being "
Re: (Score:2)
>>> ....the Beatles are the most insipid, obnoxious band in the past 80 years.
Hard to disagree if you're talking about their "I wanna hold your hand" period. Hard disagree on the later albums, but that may be because my personal preference is the moodier, more cynical, more thoughtful style they embodied.
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 5c as a long time musician.
Whilst songs like I wanna hold your hand are not musically complex, huge pop hits are not easy to write. Great simple hook songs are in fact harder to write, If they were easy, everybody would be doing it.
To get the top 5 hit singles in a US national phisical singles chart has never been done by anyone else since.
with “Can’t Buy Me Love“ at No. 1, “Twist and Shout” at No. 2, “She Loves You” at No. 3, “I Want to Hold Your Hand
Re: (Score:2)
The Beatles' fan base is a lot more than boomers. I saw McCartney at Dodger Stadium a few years ago, and the boomers in the audience were outnumbered by much younger people, most of whom appeared to know the words to all the songs.
By the way, your opinion of the Beatles earns you a membership in that huge group of people who think it's cool to be contrarian. Congratulations on being so original!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh, its not like nearly every successful musician since has said they were inspired by them, oh wait, yes it is. They are credited widely as the most influential band, and I know muso’s from 12 years old to 80 years old who love them. Teenagers regularly post youtube vids of them being amazed by fining the quality of the Beatles.
By every measure, they were amongst the best popular music acts ever, and deservedly so.
In 200 years time they will still be regarded as greats.
Re: (Score:2)
That is weird to consider, isn't it? They were talented enough, produced enough, and had enough variety that I do expect their music will last hundreds of years... maybe not with the original recordings listened to by anyone other than music historians, but almost certainly as songs that are continually covered pretty much as long as people still care about Western culture at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I fell down some stairs once carrying a guitar and accidentally wrote a Nickelback song.
Sir Paul (Score:1)
Sir Paul wants to slurp all the money left in Beatles fans pockets.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's about money; he doesn't need money. He's a workaholic who likes projects.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Any such reconstruction is going to have recording royalties going to Paul, Ringo and John and George's estates. Publishing rights might be trickier, if Paul adds lyrics or any additional music (like a bridge or new verses). As I recall from Free As A Bird, that ended up being kind of dual licensed to John and then to John, Paul, George and Ringo. I think Real Love was pretty much a pure John song, so he was given sole writing credits. In this case, I would think that the writing credit would be solely John
Re: (Score:2)
From all Ive seen of him, Macca is a down to earth real guy, who just loves playing music to people. Its notable he was married to the love of his life until she died, with never a whisper of scandal, rate indeed for a muso.
The vid below of him writing a song live in front of an audience at Abbey Rd is well worth a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Funny thing is, by the time I was 10 in 1970, I thought the Beatles were old hat, and its wasnt until the early 90’s when a young band of guys I knew k
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most extraordinary scenes in Peter Jackson's Get Back documentary is Paul literally writing the main hook for Get Back, and more than a little of the song itself, sitting strumming his bass. I mean, this guy is just an amazing songwriter. He doesn't hit it out of the park, but considering the sheer number of records he's made and songs he's written, there are damned few people that approach him for productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
If "Sir Paul" / "slurp all" was deliberate, I tip my hat to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
BeatleBot will beg to differ (Score:2)
Stop exploiting old rock stars, you evil bastards. (Score:2)
The (real) news that ain't talked about... (Score:2)
Quote: "Sir Paul had received the demo a year earlier from Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. It was one of several songs on a cassette labelled "For Paul" that Lennon had made shortly before his death in 1980."
Basically, (here's the NEWS) Yoko One has RETAINED, NOT GIVE AS INDICATED, a cassette for 43 YEARS for Sir Paul.
So, Yoko Ono has FAILED to COMPLY with John Lennon's will.
Since Paul didn't name the song (Score:2)
Since Paul didn't name the song, and I spent yesterday listening to a few "AI Beatles" tracks, I'll give links to a few - probably soon to be taken down:
"New" [youtube.com]
This is actually a latter-day song Paul wrote and recorded on his own. BUT, they have replaced old-man-Paul's vocal with an AI vocal of young Paul. That part actually sounds amazing. They added AI-Lennon for a few brief lines, the pronunciation sounds a bit off. Overall a very Beatlesque composition, not a bad listen.
"Grow Old With Me" [youtube.com]
Lots more AI-Lenn
Meh (Score:2)