New Beatles song out today…..

Beautiful!!! Thanks!!

Beginning of the end.

> AI tech has been used to better isolate Lennon’s voice

I was reading about this the other day. Apparently, this project got started 10+ years ago while George was still alive, but the tech back then wasn't able to get the isolation of John's voice they were looking for.

Cool they got this together, but can it really be considered a Beatles track since John recorded it in 1977?  

Watching the Get Back movie, I was surprised to hear the band doing so many different songs just goofing around in the studio that never ended up on any albums.  I would be interested in hearing more of that stuff. 

Number 9

Yeah. It's a Beatles track. All four of them are on there.

It's a soothing song.

Greatest Rock and Roll band in the world! (Sorry Rolling Stones)

{ Of course, the greatest band of all time is The Grateful Dead }

Thought that the vid was well done ....

Elvis is next.

A1 brings back the Beatles.  Nice tune.

Wow, Bobby, Jerry and ???

Some sweet smiles there; all of those young men, as well as Paul and Ringo now. Nice to see them.

I enjoyed that video, very well done

Yeah, I thought they really recaptured some of the zaniness of their early days. The interactions between their older selves and the more current versions were pretty cool too.

Cross-posted from turn the clocks back thread

Remember the joy of hearing the Dead play Revolution in 83?  Unbelievable!

Lol , how appropriate, Judit!

zinga,

Not reall AI though. The tracsk were all played by humans, Its just the technology which separated out John's vocal from the piano part. Not sure why people are calling it AI.

The video is fantastic. Thanks, fishcane.

Some interesting analysis here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/opinion/beatles-lennon-mccartney-last...

This link avoids the paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20231105142057/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/...

Geez, for a New York Times piece, you would think they would get a basic year correct. John and Paul didn’t meet in 1957. They met the year before, on July 7, 1956. It’s only been cited and discussed in most Beatles biographies. I guess this NYT writer missed that in his research...

It’s also a bit sketchy to say that it’s unclear whether or not John and Paul had a sexual relationship. “As far as we know, it wasn’t a sexual relationship.” Yes John had some bisexual encounters, but Paul has always made it very clear that he was not one of those. Again, this writer missed that? If I was Macca I’d be kinda PISSED about that. 

So in those two examples, low marks for sloppy and inaccurate writing. 

Does “As far as we know, it wasn’t a sexual relationship” really make it unclear whether or not John and Paul had a sexual relationship? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Seems to me it leaves the door open as a possibility, but in no way suggests that might have been the case.

> They met the year before, on July 7, 1956

I'm reading it was July 6, 1957.

https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/when-paul-mccartney-met-john...

So in those two examples, low marks for sloppy and inaccurate writing. 

Ha, fuck me. Okay, I mixed up the 6 and 7. They met on 7/6/57, not 7/7/56. The date is often cited, I just got it backwards. 

Must be the fucking time change messing me up, I hate it. 

So yes I got that backwards. But still it seems like an insinuation about a sexual thing between the two. Seriously? I mean, why even mention it if you’re not wanting to “leave the door open as a possibility”? McCartney is not the guy. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” and so on, but Paul is just not that guy, and that seems to have always been pretty clear.

Not satisfied with my having successfully performed a six-change operation on his critique, cupertino still seems to want me to parse the other part out. Okay, I'm game.

How about if we give the language that you're having a hard time with some context? Here's the entire paragraph in which it's found:

"Although it has been variously framed as a friendship, a rivalry or a partnership of convenience, the best way to think about the relationship between these two geniuses is as a love affair. As far as we know, it wasn’t a sexual relationship, but it was a passionate one: intense, tender and tempestuous."

So, the writer's thesis is that the relationship between Lennon and McCartney should be seen as a love affair. He then qualifies this statement by saying that even though there's no evidence it was a sexual relationship, it was still a deeply passionate one.

I think I've paraphrased the passage accurately, and I still see no suggestion that Lennon and McCartney's relationship might have had a sexual component. Quite the opposite, really.