Paul McCartney says artificial intelligence has enabled a 'final' Beatles song
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Well, they wouldn't be that far off...
In any way that counts.
>It’s a voice line from Lenon extracted from a tape and mixed with other tracks recorded by other band members. That’s akin to any other track produced by the band.
The Beatles were a band, not someone's remix project. There's no band, it has disbanded in 1970.
And two members aren't even alive, to see whether the agree on the use of their material, one that's even been made for a solo record, and by a band member they had their beefs with post-split.
If you meant "It's a song that will use sounds that have been produced at some time or another from people that once were members of the Beatles", yes. Not the same as a Beatles song.
And we're not even getting into the spirit of what the Beatles were, of which this is the antithesis...
At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony.
So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be.
Yes. And when they do so, it's a hijacking of the original band's name. Which can be legally fine, but dubious as to the original spirit. Of course some bands are just a figurehead (or two) plus a replacable roster of members that are just hired guns. These remain the same band throught changes, because they were never about those other persons. But the Beatles weren't that with regards to John and George.
Even more so when it's 53 years (over a century) after the band called it quits.
Even more so when they are using, without the persons' permission, a demo song by a member who died 40+ years ago, who wrote it for their own solo use, as "the band's".
>At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be.
Irrelevant. We're talking about music and legacy, not trademarks and contract law. If that's your criteria for whether a song is a Beatles songs, that's a pretty law bar.
Hell, they might even sell the rights to the name and some Max Martin type in 2100 might put out new music as "The Beatles", having proper rights and everything. Even use snippets of the old songs. Doesn't mean that has anything to do with Beatles the band. It's just greedy music industry looking for quick bucks pissing all over a legacy.
I mean I get it, but you shouldn’t try and force your personal paradigm on others.
Yes.
>because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally
No, because those (Best and Stuart) aren't the persons that wrote and played the Beatles seminal songs and albums, or that billions of people identified as the Beatles during their recording career.
Best is just a member from when they were a small time cover band, that was sacked before they made anything of importance, and who didn't contribute anything to their music or their sound, and zero album songs.
You could remove everything they did with Best and you'll still have their discography intact, including all their seminal songs. Try doing that without the other four.
That's the very opposite of "arbitrary attachment"...
>I mean I get it
Nah, you clearly don't.
Of course it's not The Beatles, not in time frame, quality, or assent.
I love The Beatles and think the technical side is interesting but it sounds like a ghastly prospect musically and historically if its in their name. It'll probably be a massive hit.
it isn’t paul’s fault that he doesn’t know he’s going to release several more final songs in the coming years.
he can’t know what he hasn’t done yet.
until he releases another one.