Now And Then — The Last Beatles Song

[joeyluck]

A pretty cool short documentary:

The song:

[challism]

Cool technology Peter Jackson has there. The isolated JL vocals sound so clear. It's hard to believe it was pulled from a shitty cassette tape recording. Definitely some magic enhancements going on with that process. I guess they couldn't do it with Melodyne? I've never used Melodyne.

I love The Beatles. <3 Not just their music, but their story and their impact on the world. It's safe to say the world will never see anything like that in the music industry again.

[Tiny Montgomery]

Ironically, this sounds like when Tame Impala does one of his Beatles pastiches, in a good way.

[dvdrtldg]

I'm a huge Beatles fan but sorry, this is dreadful

I mean of course it's barrel-scraping and I wasn't expecting a top-tier song, but the production is just so flat and sludgy, has none of that distinctive Beatles snap & crackle. The only really characteristic touch is the string arrangement, which sounds exactly like... ELO

And Lennon's voice sounds terrible in the chorus. Even just taken as an example of the restorative powers of AI technology, it's very underwhelming

[DaveyG]

It's easy to forget that many, many of the Beatles songs were just average. Loads of filler on the early albums and too much experimentation on the later ones. They made some great songs but not every song they made was great.

This "new" song is really just a cash grab. The song will make a few quid and the back catalogue will see a surge in sales on the back of the publicity.

[dvdrtldg]

It's easy to forget that many, many of the Beatles songs were just average. Loads of filler on the early albums and too much experimentation on the later ones. They made some great songs but not every song they made was great.

Absolutely, almost all the albums are very patchy. Rubber Soul is the one for me that's closest to being chock full of great songs, but even then there's The Ringo Track. The later albums take more risks but they don't all come off

[Tiny Montgomery]

I'm a huge Beatles fan but sorry, this is dreadful

I mean of course it's barrel-scraping and I wasn't expecting a top-tier song, but the production is just so flat and sludgy, has none of that distinctive Beatles snap & crackle. The only really characteristic touch is the string arrangement, which sounds exactly like... ELO

And Lennon's voice sounds terrible in the chorus. Even just taken as an example of the restorative powers of AI technology, it's very underwhelming

Yes I wish they hadn't done the ELO strings again.

[Quarmat]

As someone who grew up with my parents beatles records i agree with the critics above (even though I think that in the Rubber Soul to MMT period the Beatles were demigods and did not miss a single shot). AI necromancy is fascinating nevertheless.

[Aosta]

Absolutely, almost all the albums are very patchy. Rubber Soul is the one for me that's closest to being chock full of great songs, but even then there's The Ringo Track. The later albums take more risks but they don't all come off

For me the album I think is their strongest for all round content is Revolver though the music isn't for everyone as they were still in their 'pop' phase.

[Quarmat]

Absolutely, almost all the albums are very patchy. Rubber Soul is the one for me that's closest to being chock full of great songs, but even then there's The Ringo Track. The later albums take more risks but they don't all come off

For me the album I think is their strongest for all round content is Revolver though the music isn't for everyone as they were still in their 'pop' phase.

I am on the Revolver team as well

[Tiny Montgomery]

Nothing quite beats the haunting quality of the original Dakota demos and this one is easily my favourite (even if he hasnt quite figured out all the lyrics for the middle eight):

[challism]

It's easy to forget that many, many of the Beatles songs were just average. Loads of filler on the early albums and too much experimentation on the later ones. They made some great songs but not every song they made was great.

Agreed. I consider there to be basically two eras of The Beatles. The first is when they exploded with Beatlemania. And did a shit ton of cover songs mixed with some overly sappy pop songs. I'm not much of a fan of these early works and would probably skip any of these songs if they came up in a playlist. Then they stopped touring and became a studio only band in their second era. This is the era that I am mostly fascinated with and I absolutely love most of what they did in this era. Rubber Soul is a perfect album. Revolver is a perfect album. Abbey Road is a perfect album. Those are easily my top 3.

Sgt Pepper is a great album. I love what it did to inspire other artists and how it moved the bar. It's amazing what they were able to do with just 4 tracks. I love most of the songs on this album, but I don't think it's their best, as so many people will claim. And for that reason, I think it is overrated.

I'm not a fan of the White Album. I find it to be so overrated. It should have been a single album, not a double. It would have been a solid single album with a bunch of b-sides. But I consider half the White Album to be nothing but experimental filler. It's easily the weakest their 2nd era releases.

I don't really consider Yellow Submarine to be an album. It's got some amazing songs and some that would make nice b-sides. I would rank it higher than The White Album and Let It Be.

Let It Be was ruined by Phil Spector, not to mention the many weak songs on that album. Let It Be... NAKED is a much better sounding record.

As for their solo work, I really only like Lennon's solo work. In fact, I absolutely LOVE Lennon's solo stuff. Wings was amazing, as were the Traveling Wilburys, but those aren't solo. Most of Paul's solo stuff is pretty boring to me. Same for Ringo and George. I don't really get all the love people have for All Things Must Pass.

This "new" song is really just a cash grab. The song will make a few quid and the back catalogue will see a surge in sales on the back of the publicity.

Absolutely a cash grab. I wasn't expecting it to be a great song. I haven't even heard it yet.

[joeyluck]

Not entirely sure you can call it a cash grab? The demo was initially written in 1978, and the project wasn't started until 1995. They decided then that it didn't work well enough to finish and release, sat on it for nearly 30 years, and then were inspired to revisit it because of advancements in music technology. If it were a cash grab, wouldn't they have just released it in 1995 or any year after? People can have their opinions about the sound and mix, but I think that their hearts were in it, they felt like it could finally be fully realized, and they are genuinely enthusiastic about the music tech and making the song happen.

That or I guess everything can be considered a cash grab lol. If you aren't just sharing it privately with friends and family, whatever it is, it could be a cash grab?

[dvdrtldg]

I don't really get all the love people have for All Things Must Pass.

Same. Who the fk releases a triple album? Even all The Beatles together couldn't manage a good double one. All Things Must Pass was like the giant dump that George finally got to take after seven years of enforced creative constipation, must have felt great to push it out but it still stinks. Well, it doesn't completely stink, there are a few good tracks on it. But it does provide rock-solid justification for the fact that Macca and Lennon considered him a lesser songwriting talent

George imo was great but he was also the Dispensable Beatle. Take away Lennon, McCartney or Ringo and you don't have The Beatles any more. But take away George, replace his songs with more Lennon/McCartney numbers, and you're basically fine. He was a good guitarist, subtle and very tasteful, but not particularly distinctive and plenty of other jobbing guitarist/singers in the 60s could have filled his shoes. And I always thought the hippy dippy Krishna vibe that he brought to the band was a bit naff, could have done without the sitars

[challism]

Not entirely sure you can call it a cash grab? The demo was initially written in 1978, and the project wasn't started until 1995. They decided then that it didn't work well enough to finish and release, sat on it for nearly 30 years, and then were inspired to revisit it because of advancements in music technology. If it were a cash grab, wouldn't they have just released it in 1995 or any year after? People can have their opinions about the sound and mix, but I think that their hearts were in it, they felt like it could finally be fully realized, and they are genuinely enthusiastic about the music tech and making the song happen.

That or I guess everything can be considered a cash grab lol. If you aren't just sharing it privately with friends and family, whatever it is, it could be a cash grab?

Good point. I guess we have to define what cash grab actually means before we can get to the bottom of it. It does seem like their hearts were in it and they actually cared about the quality of the song, otherwise they would have released it with the anthology in 1995. Given those points, it doesn't quite fit my definition of a cash grab. So I'm going to waffle on my position. ha ha ha Thanks Joey, can you please pass the syrup?

I don't really get all the love people have for All Things Must Pass.

All Things Must Pass was like the giant dump that George finally got to take after seven years of enforced creative constipation, must have felt great to push it out but it still stinks.

ha ha ha

George imo was great but he was also the Dispensable Beatle. Take away Lennon, McCartney or Ringo and you don't have The Beatles any more. But take away George, replace his songs with more Lennon/McCartney numbers, and you're basically fine. He was a good guitarist, subtle and very tasteful, but not particularly distinctive and plenty of other jobbing guitarist/singers in the 60s could have filled his shoes. And I always thought the hippy dippy Krishna vibe that he brought to the band was a bit naff, could have done without the sitars

I disagree. I think all 5 of the Beatles were absolutely indispensable. Swap any of them out for somebody else and you have a different band. There was something magical about the chemistry of these 5 men (George Martin). If you listen to various interviews from GH's bandmates over the years, they always compliment how amazing he was. How gifted he was at coming up with the perfect parts that always serve the song. His compositions in the Beatles discography are some of my favorite Beatles songs, and the parts he added to Lennon/Macca songs were always on point. I agree with you about his Eastern religion fascination; at least he didn't wear a robe.

[brianwdowliong]

As others have mentioned, not all songs hit the mark, as with all bands. They were a very innovative band in a number of areas and their influence was felt across the entire music industry.

It's also interesting to me as a first generation Beatles fan who "rode the wave" at the time; Beatle posters, Beatle trading cards, sitting through "A Hard Day's Night" three times in a row and the like, that some of their music has endured for so many years and is enjoyed by so many.

I found "Now and Then" to be quite lush in the production, maybe too much added to the original demo, but I personally enjoyed the nostalgic feel to it.

I feel that much of what we relate to musically is also about where we were at the time and place we first heard it. "Now and Then" evokes some of those memories for me, but the last songs of any artist are not always the Coda that represents the peak of their creative endeavours.

[motuscott]

"Ringo Track?"

en guard!