New Beatles track

[TalismanRich]

One thing I will say though, this song could end up being a blessing in disguise for home recorders. The tech that exists to "unbake the cake" as it were, could mean that if we can afford it or it becomes commonplace, we could apply it to drums of any song and then write one's own songs around them and hardly anyone need ever know. And who cares if it's cheating ? The Beatles did it !

I think Random Dude did something like that with his Drum Covers thread. Take the song, remove the drums and add in your own.

"Last night I was jammin' with the guys in Bad Company! We were ROCKING! Tomorrow night I'm sitting in for Alex Leifson."

 

[60's guy]

I think Random Dude did something like that with his Drum Covers thread. Take the song, remove the drums and add in your own.

"Last night I was jammin' with the guys in Bad Company! We were ROCKING! Tomorrow night I'm sitting in for Alex Leifson."

I've listened to Random Dude's covering of songs, removing the original drum tracks, and replacing the original drum tracks with his own drumming, and it's amazing how good it is that Random Dude has talent enough to successfully do that! Especially after Random Dude was made aware of Spleeter, thanks to this forum, I might add.
Random Dude is a real person, not to be compared with bodiless AI identities.

Hope you do well sitting in for Alex! Record it!

 

[grimtraveller]

A blessing in disguise?

Yes. Observe how we went from the acoustic drum kit, either learning how to play drums or finding people that could play them to the state of affairs where an acoustic drum kit is no longer necessary. Many of those that use all the alternatives would regard those alternatives as a blessing in disguise, even though when drum machines first appeared, they were viewed by many as lower than shit. They're a blessing in disguise in the same way VSTis were a blessing in disguise for me. The chances of me meeting all the instrumentalists that I would have liked to use were close to zero. Now I don't have to. I can do much of it myself.

AI is the way of the future? I certainly hope not

It's unavoidable. It's been around in increasing strength for goodness knows how many years now and it ain't going away any time soon. It's here and people are going to use it and it will get more developed and then

Is AI produced music the future?. I certainly hope not

Same point really. For a number of years, there have been adverts for mastering suites where you send in your track and what was then a crude form of AI does the rest. I'll always look to real living human beings with their own ears, minds, knowledge, musical tastes and experience, but that's just me. I'm old school to a large extent. The presence of 'old school' implies the active presence of a school that is no longer old.
The way music has been put together over the last half-century does not bode well for your hope, I'm afraid. Humans are humans, for better or for worse. We don't stand still. Perhaps we should, once in a while. But even if some of us do, not all of us will.

The majority of home recordists are primarily interested in learning how best to use their stand alone tape or digital recorders, or DAW, to record themselves

They may be at the moment, although I can't speak for the majority of home recordists.
But unfortunately, not everyone thinks like you. If everyone did, most of the production tools, processes and plug-ins of the digital age would have gone the same way as the 8-track, minidiscs and quadrophonic.

Recording oneself is a personal journey of learning and experimentation.

Yes. That's how it has been for me.
When I first began recording with multi-tracks, I wouldn't have dreamed of cutting the tape and splicing different performances together, even though by '92 when I started, that was old hat. Now, I think nothing of recording a song in sections, recorded at different times according to the availability of those who are helping with their contributions, then putting the lot together. The listener will never be aware. All they hear is a song.
Digital is my razor blade.
Well, all of that applies to AI, in principle. For some people, the use of AI will be part of their personal journey of learning and experimentation.

 

[grimtraveller]

I think Random Dude did something like that with his Drum Covers thread. Take the song, remove the drums and add in your own

See, it's happening already !!!

 

[TalismanRich]

Hope you do well sitting in for Alex! Record it!

Alas, I failed the audition!

 

[Serendipity Records]

Alas, I failed the audition!

Wait... was that real?!

 

[grimtraveller]

Wait... was that real?!

When Rich said he was sitting in for Alex Lifeson, he meant he was watching Alex's dogs while Alex went for a jam with Geddy !!

 

[grimtraveller]

Marco62 said : If Paul had died in the 80's and John was the one still here, would he have done the same thing with a McCartney cassette? I kind of think he wouldn't care about it. What do all of you think?

I agree with you. I can only go with the last statements he made, but he didn't seem in any great hurry to re-establish any musical partnership with Paul. He seemed to see Paul in a certain context ~ a great collaborator at the time that he was collaborating with him, but that had run its course and he found someone and something with which he was more satisfied. He was happy to talk about the past, but not with any intention of recreating it.

Paul on the other hand, has been like a lapping dog {no offence intended ~ I'm a lover of each individual Beatle} that has never really been able to let go of the monumental impact of that incredible 7-8 year period of his past.

Naturally, we can never know how John may have developed and changed in middle age, but Paul has been entirely consistent. I said earlier that John had a point when he accused Paul of thinking he was the Beatles. I don't think there has been a moment since John left the Beatles in September 1969 that Paul would not have done with John demos on cassette what he did with "Free as a Bird" to "Now and Then." Whereas I don't think John was in the slightest bit interested in Paul demos. He was such an insular character that he stopped needing Paul adding to his songs as far back as 1968. Paul always needed him more than John needed Paul.

Yet the irony of it all is that actually, it is Paul who began that ball rolling. George was very vocal right from 1970/71 about how, from about 1965, Paul would come in with songs in which he had worked out what everyone would play and that the others' chance to add their own parts and ideas became less and less. This coincided with George writing more songs, but not getting help from the others and him getting more and more into Indian music and philosophy. Paul's own control issues opened up a door in which the others said, "Well, this is what I want for my songs" although in reality, they were far more collaborative than Paul was.

It's one of the great ironies of the Beatles' story ~ the very guy that needed the band the most was the one that opened the door for the ones he needed, to go their own way.

 

[Ujn Hunter]

Paul always needed him more than John needed Paul.

As someone who doesn't really care about the Beatles, but REALLY loves the Album RAM, this is a funny statement to me.

Also... how can Lennon's "Paul thought he was the Beatles" and then the thought that Paul needed John line up at all? Makes no sense. Isn't it one or the other?

 

[Serendipity Records]

As someone who doesn't really care about the Beatles, but REALLY loves the Album RAM, this is a funny statement to me.

Also... how can Lennon's "Paul thought he was the Beatles" and then the thought that Paul needed John line up at all? Makes no sense. Isn't it one or the other?

Some people are just insecure in that way. Not to label Paul, and especially not being a Beatles historian like our friend @grimtraveller but relying on people to help advance your image ("Paul needed John") while claiming most/all of the credit ("Paul thought he was the Beatles") is generally a sure sign of narcissism.

 

[Mick Doobie]

I don't know if it means anything or applies to anything being discussed...

Paul has talked a lot about Getting Better over the years. And well he should. The beauty of their...strong points?...the juxtaposition in lyric content, perhaps outlook on life. Perfect example. "It's getting better all the time/Couldn't get no worse". Maybe just sense of humor, cheeky. Pretty cool. Paul says, "I couldn't have done that by myself". I'm thinking he is right, and good on him for acknowledging.

I just recently had an argument with someone over that song. A Beatles fan! The above mentioned lyric and the bridge/"middle eight", " I used to be cruel to my woman...". I mean sheesh, even if you were a casual Beatles fan and didn't knkw the history a lightbulb should go off. Of course! Besides being obvious, it's a matter of public record, so to speak. Wasn't really a argument, necessarily, I just had to let go.

 

[grimtraveller]

how can Lennon's "Paul thought he was the Beatles" and then the thought that Paul needed John line up at all? Makes no sense. Isn't it one or the other?

Not necessarily.
In truth, from the time Brian Epstein died {indeed, a little before that}, Paul made much of the running in the Beatles. He loved the fan worship {he was the last of the band to agree to quit touring}, and he was the big gun behind projects like Sgt Pepper, MMT, Let it Be and Abbey Road. In a sense, John and George were pretty lazy and both, by 1968, had interests in their lives that were stronger than the Beatles {and which they kept with until they died}. Paul liked to flaunt it a bit, but in truth, the Beatles were always a unit. And he loved being in that gang. Even now, half a century on, one can detect his love for those times. He wanted the Beatles to go back to live performance, whereas once John had Yoko, and George had India, neither needed Paul. George was quite happy swanning off and playing music with others and John was quite happy to make his Yoko music. Neither felt the need for Paul.
So when I say that he needed John more than vice-versa, this is borne out by so much that Paul has said over the last half-century. He felt he was the guy that held it together and had the ideas for projects in the 2nd half of the band's time together {not entirely without merit}, yet at the same time, he was the most invested in the band. George and John didn't disappear into a funk of depression and isolation when the Beatles ended. Paul did. In fact George and Paul were pretty supercharged with their albums at first. John stated he never noticed any loss. Paul has spent so long trying to compensate emotionally for John quitting.
Well, that's what I think, anyway. I don't see Paul thinking he was the leading light in the band yet being the one who couldn't deal with the break up as contradictory at all. Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Ujn Hunter]

So, Paul *was* the Beatles in the second half... and Paul didn't need John at all, because some (lots of?) his post Beatles output was great. Got it.

 

[TalismanRich]

I think John didn't "need" the Beatles by '68-69 because he had Yoko. She was the controller in the pairing, in many respects, the maternal influence that John wanted/needed. The other Beatles weren't enamored with her influence, and that pissed John off. I think his heroin addiction also played a part in his withdrawal from the group. Both he and Yoko were into heroin during that period.

 

[grimtraveller]

So, Paul *was* the Beatles in the second half... and Paul didn't need John at all, because some (lots of?) his post Beatles output was great. Got it.

I dig that that's an attempt at sarcasm of sorts....but I haven't a clue what you mean !
Elucidate, brother man.

I think John didn't "need" the Beatles by '68-69 because he had Yoko. She was the controller in the pairing, in many respects, the maternal influence that John wanted/needed

I agree. When I say that John didn't need Paul, I'm not arguing the wrongs, rights or merits or demerits of the opinion {which, after all, was John's opinion}, just the facts of the matter. John got away with "Revolution 9" and a series of lame solo records before he finally left the band. He thought he was in Nirvana with Yoko and heroin then Janov and Primal Scream. What did he need Paul and his "Granny music" for when he could put out much of the crap he was putting out circa '68-'70.

I think his heroin addiction also played a part in his withdrawal from the group

That was pretty well hidden for many years. Or let's just say, "not focused on...."

 

[Ujn Hunter]

Well, the whole "Paul thought he was the Beatles" and then saying that "Paul was the one keeping them together and guiding the ship" pretty much means that at that point he was, in fact, the Beatles. i.e. without Paul, no "Sgt Pepper, MMT, Let it Be and Abbey Road.". So instead of the jab at Paul "thinking he was the Beatles", it seems he didn't need to "think" that at all. Also... saying that Paul "needed" John is kinda silly, since his output "without" John, is (to me) just as good, if not better than the Beatles.

 

[grimtraveller]

Well, the whole "Paul thought he was the Beatles" and then saying that "Paul was the one keeping them together and guiding the ship" pretty much means that at that point he was, in fact, the Beatles. i.e. without Paul, no "Sgt Pepper, MMT, Let it Be and Abbey Road.". So instead of the jab at Paul "thinking he was the Beatles", it seems he didn't need to "think" that at all

Ok, gotcha.
A couple of things. Paul wasn't the Beatles. Yes, he kept the fire under two recalcitrant and essentially lazy bandmates, but at the same time, he wasn't encouraging George in his songwriting. John wasn't either, but that aside, the fact will always remain that as Paul became more powerful within the Beatles, both John and George wrote some of the most fantastic songs in the Beatles' catalogue. Whatever was going on within the unit never prevented them doing their best for the Beatles. John actually said to David Sheff in 1980 that Paul started taking over a little too much for his liking, having previously stated that none of them was the leader of the Beatles, it was a democracy ~ although if there was a leader it was him. And he publicly thanked Paul forever for helping to keep the band going in "Glass Onion" when he wrote the lines "The Walrus was Paul" {although even there there was some typically John double-dealing going on because he spent 10 years identifying the walrus as the bad guy, having initially thought he was the good guy}.
The albums that you mentioned above were never going to be sustained by Paul's songs alone. That applied to all of them, actually. So, I see a paradox in your statement

without Paul, no "Sgt Pepper, MMT, Let it Be and Abbey Road."

You take John and George's {and even Ringo !} songs and contributions off those albums and you have lesser albums. The same goes for Paul's songs. And that's essentially my point, this quartet was a unit. John's point was that he felt Paul got a little too big for his boots and found out he was more needy than he liked to demonstrate.

Also... saying that Paul "needed" John is kinda silly, since his output "without" John, is (to me) just as good, if not better than the Beatles.

Well, that's always going to be subjective, isn't it ? The underlying point is that Paul is the one that has always felt the loss, not John. Paul, even to this day, compares his collaborators against working with John. And they clearly don't match up in his emotional make-up. Whereas John wasn't interested in any more collaborators.
I personally don't think John matched his Beatle songs after the split although he did. Whereas I think Paul did a few songs that outweigh his Beatle stuff. But that's just my particular perspective.