OT: Final Beatles Song

[MathOfInsects]

That question says as much about the person asking, as it does about whoever answers it. All they have in common is gender. Katy Perry hasn't had a hit or been relevant since maybe the middle-late 2010s, whenever Teenage Dream was. Taylor Swift has had arguably one of the best 5-year stretches in the history of pop music, and only seems to be getting stronger. 

I always remind people...the Beatles weren't Beatles-level talent either, at first. They had an infectious sound, but were basically just a boy-band. It's only later than they became the group we think of now. 

Crazy, though, that everything they did happened in about a 6 and a half-year span. Talk about outsized influence...

[D. Gauss]

13 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

 

I always remind people...the Beatles weren't Beatles-level talent either, at first. 

That's patently false.  By the time they "arrived" on the charts (after years of the reeperbahn, etc) their talents were pretty much fully formed. i.e. arguably, George never did a better, more succinct solo than the one on "All my Loving." Despite the songs perhaps being more "pedestrian" or "boy band" to some, there's still boatloads of clever musical stuff going on with harmonies, changes, etc. that few else, if any were doing in the pop/rock domain at the time. That said, i don't care at all for the um "new" song that was just cobbled together.

[Radagast]

6 hours ago, mrk7421 said:

Another "reunion" thought.....I would have liked to have seen some gigs where Paul might have sat in with Ringo and the All Starr Band. And as a second drummer....add Pete Best to the mix. The one thing the Beatles DID NOT do was to give Best credit for his two grueling years in Hamburg. As far as him being inadequate....if you listen to the Decca audition there were moments where they all sucked. He got punished for sucking on Love Me Do.... George Martin said no go and that was it for Pete. Can you imagine?...we have all had personality clashes as working musicians.....Pete took the worst ever rejection that has EVER been given in the music biz....the worst form of loss ever. Something could have been done to heal that one. All you need is love,?

I think I saw a YouTube video that said Pete Best was compensated financially during the time of Anthology, and it wasn’t a pittance.

[MathOfInsects]

6 hours ago, D. Gauss said:

That's patently false.  By the time they "arrived" on the charts (after years of the reeperbahn, etc) their talents were pretty much fully formed. i.e. arguably, George never did a better, more succinct solo than the one on "All my Loving." Despite the songs perhaps being more "pedestrian" or "boy band" to some, there's still boatloads of clever musical stuff going on with harmonies, changes, etc. that few else, if any were doing in the pop/rock domain at the time. That said, i don't care at all for the um "new" song that was just cobbled together.

Well, it's easy to look backward and see the seeds of things to come, for sure. But in fact, George's solo in All My Loving was so meekly played that George Martin had to overdub a piano track under it to make it pop and rein in his bad timing. The Beatles ended their Reeperbahn era as a crackerjack live band. As a recording band, their music was tuneful and energetic from the start, and had a quirk of muddying the waters between what was a "verse" and what was a chorus," but was not what we know "The Beatles" for now.  I'm not saying they weren't talented and their tunes weren't catchy. But if their career had ended after "Please Please Me," we would not be discussing them today. What happened with them happened because of those sweet-spot years of Hard Day's Night through Rubber Soul, and once they saw what was possible for a "great little rock and roll band" to do, they started aiming for (and mostly achieving) grander goals.  

[o0Ampy0o]

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

I'm not saying they weren't talented and their tunes weren't catchy. But if their career had ended after "Please Please Me," we would not be discussing them today. What happened with them happened in those sweet-spot years of Hard Day's Night through Rubber Soul, and once they saw what was possible for a "great little rock and roll band" to do, they started aiming for (and mostly achieving) grander goals. 

 

What a nightmare in some alternative reality, The Beatles ending at Please Please Me.

 

The infectious early Beatles grabbed the masses and lead them from black and white to full color.

[stoken6]

13 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

All they have in common is gender. Katy Perry hasn't had a hit or been relevant since maybe the middle-late 2010s, whenever Teenage Dream was. Taylor Swift has had arguably one of the best 5-year stretches in the history of pop music, and only seems to be getting stronger. 

Thank you for perfectly understanding the point of my question @MathOfInsects

 

Cheers, Mike.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

On 11/4/2023 at 10:24 AM, RABid said:

If AI was only used to separate Lennon's voice from piano on old tapes then the living members of the Beatles need to really push that information. 

I'm pretty sure this is the only narrative the Beatles have been pushing. Every other narrative I've heard is from random, unconnected people being pre-outraged about a DeepFaked John Lennon, which was never what this was. The short making-of film makes that pretty clear, as is everything Paul and Ringo have said about the track (which you could compare to the existing Lennon demo that's been floating around for decades and recognize that it's the same vocal). It's not on the Beatles to correct people who willfully misunderstand what has been made very clear.

 

I also have to disagree with the calls to "redo" Free as a Bird and Real Love with this technology, for the same reason I'm not interested in the 21st-century remixes of Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road from the original source tapes. The technology of the time was used as a creative tool to achieve a certain sound. Sgt. Pepper's layers and layers of overdubs being bounced from one four track to the next to the next to the next, all of that was being taken into account as a part of the process and the end result, even if it meant making certain sacrifices. The creative decisions were made in a context that should be respected. So I think those redone versions are interesting from a historical perspective, but not to be seen as improvements or replacements for the original mixes, lest we rob them of what made them important and influential at the time (in addition to the stunning songwriting, of course). Pushing available technology to its limits has always been a part of the Beatles' story, and I think Free as a Bird and Real Love are just as important historically to see how they could do that in the 90s, vs what it allowed for this final track in 2023.

 

As you may deduce, I also only watch the original, pre-additional-CGI 70s and 80s versions of the Star Wars trilogy. 🤣

 

 

[MathOfInsects]

6 hours ago, stoken6 said:

Thank you for perfectly understanding the point of my question @MathOfInsects

 

Cheers, Mike.

Ah, I missed that post. It all makes sense now.

[Piktor]

I listened to the song only once and think that at very least it is a nice break from the sameness of lots of modern pop. I am impressed with the tech and musical decisions and performances that went it’s creation. What DID surprise me was the emotional impact that the song had on me. Maybe it had something to do with a short story that I read in Omni In the 1980s. Spider Robinson’s story was titled “ Rubber Soul”. If I recall correctly, the basic idea of the story was that McCartney had Lennon preserved cryogenically (?) preserved and then, later, has him revived. At the story’s end they set about to write more music together. Maybe my reaction had something to do with my age and seeing a number of my musical mates pass away or experience poor health. Maybe it has something to with the fact I lost a brother ten years ago or that my father is almost 93 and one day I will miss sharing a beer and a laugh with him. Maybe I am overly sentimental. Of course, we always bring our own experiences and feelings into our perceptions of art. Listening to this song gave me a feeling of temporarily opening a door to an afterlife and spending an afternoon having tea with a significant someone that I had not seen in a long time. 

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

The past is something we can only visit, we can't live in it. Having a new Beatles song is a pleasant visit. But then like all visits, it's over. 

[o0Ampy0o]

38 minutes ago, Anderton said:

The past is something we can only visit, we can't live in it. Having a new Beatles (John Lennon) song is a pleasant visit. But then like all visits, it's over. 

 

Visiting a past that wasn't is a fantasy. It is nice to have a fresh John Lennon song to listen to. John was not a Beatle when he made that recording. In this regard well before this song existed John said himself,  "The dream is over." The results of this project are superior to the jam session "Beatles reunion" in the Anthology but that also has its own special quality when acknowledging the truth of what it is absent of what it is not.

[zxcvbnm098]

On 11/5/2023 at 11:03 AM, mrk7421 said:

Another "reunion" thought.....I would have liked to have seen some gigs where Paul might have sat in with Ringo and the All Starr Band. And as a second drummer....add Pete Best to the mix. The one thing the Beatles DID NOT do was to give Best credit for his two grueling years in Hamburg. As far as him being inadequate....if you listen to the Decca audition there were moments where they all sucked. He got punished for sucking on Love Me Do.... George Martin said no go and that was it for Pete. Can you imagine?...we have all had personality clashes as working musicians.....Pete took the worst ever rejection that has EVER been given in the music biz....the worst form of loss ever. Something could have been done to heal that one. All you need is love,?

In the insane Mark Lewisohn book All These Years (Volume 1 of what will be a 3 volume set), he goes into great depth about the decision to get a new drummer to replace Pete. To paraphrase, while it was partly about his skill set (they felt he wasn't developing as quickly as they were), it was also about group dynamics. When they were in Hamburg, Pete kept to himself and didn't go out with the other three. Apparently he liked his alone time (to use a current phrase), while the other three were super tight and always out together. When Ringo joined the group, not only did he bring a palpable energy to the playing, he also just "fit in" with the other three. The same quick wit, the same sense of humor, the same ambition. Ringo, an only child, has said it was an immediate brotherly feeling when he joined. But yeah, Pete was crushed. 

[cedar]

I've listened a few times to this tune, and something about the arrangement kind of turns me off. I don't think my complaint is related to the technology.  There's just something about it that leaves me cold.  I preferred the demo version.  I appreciate the opportunity to hear any output from any of the Beatles, though.  

[Spider76]

On 11/4/2023 at 3:24 PM, RABid said:

When researching this song it is amazing how much the implied use of AI is varies from story to story. 

 

As Samuel said, literally all the "stories", articles, interviews, videos... everything I found about the song said that AI only extracted John's solo voice from the mess of the demo. By now I probably read at least 30-40 reviews, news and articles and I never found any hint anywhere of supposed deepfakes. 

And the bootleg of John's demo has been available everywhere online for the last couple of decades, so it's just plain evident that it it is his song and his voice.

Let's just enjoy one last Lennon-McCartney song, no need for conspiracy theories.

 

[Threadslayer]

15 hours ago, cedar said:

There's just something about it that leaves me cold.  I preferred the demo version. 

What I'd like to know is what is up with that piano on the new non-demo version? It sounds - at least on the marginal headphones on my work computer - otherworldly, or at least highly processed. It sounds like someone ran it through that Master Plan gadget with all the smooth, gloss, wide etc. parameters maxed out. Anyone have a theory?

[SamuelBLupowitz]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:58 AM, Threadslayer said:

What I'd like to know is what is up with that piano on the new non-demo version? It sounds - at least on the marginal headphones on my work computer - otherworldly, or at least highly processed. It sounds like someone ran it through that Master Plan gadget with all the smooth, gloss, wide etc. parameters maxed out. Anyone have a theory?

I remember reading that when making Sgt. Pepper, the Beatles were obsessed with making every instrument sound like other instruments -- they wanted guitars to sound like pianos, pianos to sound like guitars, that sort of thing. They put the compressors and limiters and whatever studio toys they had at their disposal through the ringer to achieve these unusual effects.

 

It's a lot easier to process sounds these days, for better or worse. I would also be interested to know if there is some sort of fun acoustic/analog effect to get that piano sound, or if it's creative use of plugins. You'd have to ask Giles Martin, I suspect.

[MathOfInsects]

On 11/7/2023 at 5:58 AM, Threadslayer said:

What I'd like to know is what is up with that piano on the new non-demo version? It sounds - at least on the marginal headphones on my work computer - otherworldly, or at least highly processed. It sounds like someone ran it through that Master Plan gadget with all the smooth, gloss, wide etc. parameters maxed out. Anyone have a theory?

It's not entirely a theory, but a reckless guess would be that Giles ran it mono to make it sound like "Beatles piano," and then it hit the same (over-)compression and reverb sidechain as the rest of the track, and ended up sounding chorused. 

[RABid]

On 11/7/2023 at 7:54 AM, Spider76 said:

 

As Samuel said, literally all the "stories", articles, interviews, videos... everything I found about the song said that AI only extracted John's solo voice from the mess of the demo. By now I probably read at least 30-40 reviews, news and articles and I never found any hint anywhere of supposed deepfakes. 

And the bootleg of John's demo has been available everywhere online for the last couple of decades, so it's just plain evident that it it is his song and his voice.

Let's just enjoy one last Lennon-McCartney song, no need for conspiracy theories.

 

Wow. You must have a much better internet provider/search combo than I do. To have one that only delivers true facts while filtering out misleading articles and statements is amazing. My provider and search engine is the butt of frequent jokes. You know the one, "It must be true if you saw it on the internet." The first story I read flatly said "Paul McCartney uses AI to recreate John's voice on new Beatles song." There were several others that insinuated in the headline that an AI was used for John's voice, then brushed over the fact that it was extracted. But to go threw 30-40 reviews and news articles without finding any innuendo?!? I've never seen this before on the internet. 

[Threadslayer]

57 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

It's not entirely a theory, but a reckless guess would be that Giles ran it mono to make it sound like "Beatles piano," and then it hit the same (over-)compression and reverb sidechain as the rest of the track, and ended up sounding chorused. 

That's a pretty good guess, I think. That's where I was going with the Master Plan comment. It sounds like something that was applied globally during mastering/post-processing. 

[Floyd Tatum]

On 11/5/2023 at 4:22 PM, MathOfInsects said:

I always remind people...the Beatles weren't Beatles-level talent either, at first. They had an infectious sound, but were basically just a boy-band. It's only later than they became the group we think of now. 

I have to disagree with that.  Their first album, Please Please Me, contained many very strong Beatles-written songs, and a high level of musicianship.   I can't think of any boy band that could say that.

Not only that, but right out of the gate, from their first single on, they quickly became a world-class act with an insane amount of screaming girl fans.   It was called Beatle-mania.

I hope this is not what you were teaching the kids in your college-level class  🙂 .

[MathOfInsects]

22 minutes ago, Floyd Tatum said:

I can't think of any boy band that could say that.

Not only that, but right out of the gate, from their first single on, they quickly became a world-class act with an insane amount of screaming girl fans. 

You literally just described what a boy band is. 🤣😂 🤣😂  
 

 

[Floyd Tatum]

30 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

You literally just described what a boy band is. 🤣😂 🤣😂

Boy bands might have screaming fans, but I can't think of any that have the songwriting talent and musicianship that the Beatles had, from their first single forward.     They were very different from what we now think of as a "boy band".    Yes, they were a band, they were boys, and they had screaming girl fans.   But they also had good musicianship, and history-making songwriting ability, which puts them in a different class.   A few good opportunities and some luck definitely helped, but they had the goods to run with it, once they were handed the ball.

[Radagast]

On 11/6/2023 at 12:40 PM, Anderton said:

The past is something we can only visit, we can't live in it. Having a new Beatles song is a pleasant visit. But then like all visits, it's over. 

Now if we were just talking about The Rolling Stones, I could make some lame joke, “but like all stones, they’ve passed”.

[elsongs]

On 11/7/2023 at 5:58 AM, Threadslayer said:

What I'd like to know is what is up with that piano on the new non-demo version? It sounds - at least on the marginal headphones on my work computer - otherworldly, or at least highly processed. It sounds like someone ran it through that Master Plan gadget with all the smooth, gloss, wide etc. parameters maxed out. Anyone have a theory?

The piano on the new recording was played by Paul. I personally don't think there's anything out of the ordinary about it aside from the fact that it's massively overcompressed. It's only jarring to most people because pianos on previous Beatles recordings weren't squished.

[Threadslayer]

4 hours ago, elsongs said:

The piano on the new recording was played by Paul. I personally don't think there's anything out of the ordinary about it aside from the fact that it's massively overcompressed. It's only jarring to most people because pianos on previous Beatles recordings weren't squished.

Check.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

5 hours ago, elsongs said:

The piano on the new recording was played by Paul. I personally don't think there's anything out of the ordinary about it aside from the fact that it's massively overcompressed. It's only jarring to most people because pianos on previous Beatles recordings weren't squished.

That's another point I'm not sure I agree with! In the later years especially, the Beatles (and Geoff Emerick, George Martin, and their other collaborators) LOVED to compress the hell out of piano as an effect (Lovely Rita, for example). Of course, cranking an analog compressor sounds different than modern digital hypercompression. But it makes sense if we're looking at a contemporary production (albeit with certain vintage elements) from the same four musicians. Whether it's to anyone's taste, or whether this was an intentional attempt at an "effect" or just "this is how we do things these days," that's up for debate, but it's very much in keeping with the tradition of the band. They always wanted to try the newest available technology, and would occasionally find other studios to work in because EMI did not care to keep up with their biggest act's desire for the newest cutting-edge gear. They were anything but purists.

Just to go off on a slight tangent, this is one of the things that makes all the "Beatles or Stones" comparisons feel pointless to me. The Stones, at their core, are a blues/R&B band in the Chess style, and their records (with notable exceptions; here's looking at you, Satanic Majesties' Request) are reflective of trying to capture that groove and rawness, regardless of the modern trends. They're a feel band first, albeit a feel band with killer songwriting by Mick and Keith. Of course, they've captured that vibe in different sonic ways as technology has changed, but an 80s Stones record, for better or for worse, generally sounds like a Stones record with 80s production, rather than an attempt to Reimagine the Stones for the 80s. The 2023 Stones album doesn't have the same sonic profile as Exile on Main St, but it does have that similar commitment to Feeling Like the Rolling Stones.

 

But with the Beatles, even though they had similar American R&B influences that they proudly tried to emulate, particularly in the early years, they were always dedicated to capturing new sounds and diversifying their sonic profile. In the Anthology doc, Paul talks about how they would get bored of some of their favorite American artists who would put out a great record, and then every subsequent song would sound like they were trying to remake that initial hit. So they were always looking for the New Sound, whether that was off-the-wall mic techniques, unusual instrumentation, or using technology to make things sound weird (vocals through the Leslie, overcompressing the piano, overdriving an acoustic guitar through the console, playing tapes backwards, distorting the horn section overdub).

 

Of course, there's a reason "Beatley" is such an easy adjective to apply to music -- much like the Stones, the Beatles produced in 2023 still sound like the Beatles, even just from Paul and Ringo's unique feel as a rhythm section. But generally speaking, I think we can note that the sonic approach to Abbey Road vs Sgt. Pepper vs Rubber Soul vs A Hard Day's Night shows a band with a very different set of creative goals than the band that made Beggar's Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Goat's Head Soup, and Tattoo You. I would never say either is better or worse than the other, just different goals with different results.

 

Man, I could talk about this ALL DAY. 😁

[jerrythek]

22 hours ago, Floyd Tatum said:

I have to disagree with that.  Their first album, Please Please Me, contained many very strong Beatles-written songs, and a high level of musicianship.   I can't think of any boy band that could say that.

Not only that, but right out of the gate, from their first single on, they quickly became a world-class act with an insane amount of screaming girl fans.   It was called Beatle-mania.

I hope this is not what you were teaching the kids in your college-level class  🙂 .

I'm an original/from-the-beginning Beatle fan, and probably wouldn't be a musician if not for them. So I appreciate them deeply. But I get what MOI is saying. The early Beatle songs, while good pop, were basic boy likes/loves girl/girl likes/love boy pop tunes, and used the basic 2 guitars/bass/drums and vocals format. They were great pop tunes, and the energy and sometimes unique harmony vocal parts were inspired. But it wasn't until late 1965 into 1966 that they really broke out of the usual pop restraints and started doing truly innovative work. And it only grew from there. 

 

We aren't discussing their popularity or fame: it was the innovation and break-through concepts for writing and production that they/their engineers innovated.

[Floyd Tatum]

4 hours ago, jerrythek said:

I'm an original/from-the-beginning Beatle fan, and probably wouldn't be a musician if not for them. So I appreciate them deeply. But I get what MOI is saying. The early Beatle songs, while good pop, were basic boy likes/loves girl/girl likes/love boy pop tunes, and used the basic 2 guitars/bass/drums and vocals format. They were great pop tunes, and the energy and sometimes unique harmony vocal parts were inspired. But it wasn't until late 1965 into 1966 that they really broke out of the usual pop restraints and started doing truly innovative work. And it only grew from there. 

 

We aren't discussing their popularity or fame: it was the innovation and break-through concepts for writing and production that they/their engineers innovated.

Ok, I give up.   They were a boy band.

Btw, I wasn't talking about their popularity or fame either.  Just mentioned it in passing.  I was talking about their musicianship and songwriting.  If I'm not mistaken, most boy bands as we now know them, don't have that - they're a product, a producer's project, where the producer picks the material, etc.  Is that not correct?

I know that they went from a live act to a studio band, and flourished in that environment.  I don't think that necessarily detracts from their earlier achievement.   It just means that they surpassed everyone's expectations, including their own, probably.  It's also fascinating to think of why they had to do that - it was because they were (perhaps) more famous than anyone in history, and simply couldn't function as human beings on the road.  (And yeah, the screaming fans were too loud).

Btw, I'm an original beatles fan too, saw them on Ed and all that.

I concede that, in Venn diagram terms, there's a (very) small overlapping logical relation area between the set "beatles" and the set "boy band".   But to me, the beatles are real British cheddar, whereas boy bands are American "canned spray cheese product", or whatever it's called.  😀

[harmonizer]

From their first album (Please Please Me, March 1963), I consider at least 4 tracks to be very good pop music compositions: (I Saw Her Standing There, Please Please Me, Love Me Do, Do You Want to Know a Secret). That's pretty good for a first album. And the performance of "I Saw Her Standing There" is blistering. Our covers band has performed it over 10 times at various gigs over the last 19 years, but I don't think we've ever done it justice. Noteworthy new compositions over the next 16 months included "All My Loving", and pretty much all of the 13 tracks on "A Hard Day's Night". Transcribe the chords in the intro of "If I Fell". That's some pretty cool stuff.

 

All of the above is from their early period, before the "Help", "Rubber Soul", "Revolver", and later works.

[Floyd Tatum]

On 11/5/2023 at 9:14 PM, MathOfInsects said:

But in fact, George's solo in All My Loving was so meekly played that George Martin had to overdub a piano track under it to make it pop and rein in his bad timing.

Where do you come up with this stuff?  Listen to the original mono All My Loving track.  I don't hear any bad timing on George's solo, nor do I hear any piano underneath it.   It's a simple solo, yes, but very effective for the track.  George was 20 years old (approximately) when they recorded that.   Maybe George Martin helped him a little, that's his job.   Does that make it "meekly played"?   I don't think so.

 

https://youtu.be/cws_lE_V-Ns?si=XN38gQdFDMW6-Tkc