Beatles + Grammys + Technology

You say no, I say yes.

I’m far from unique among millions of people. The Beatles have, and will always be, my favorite band.

I was a second-generation Beatles fan, but I discovered their catalogue chronologically, primarily through the Red and Blue greatest hits albums, so I feel like (musically at least) I had much the same experience as those original fans.

There’s no need to go on about those amazing leaps and bounds and growth of the band during their relatively short lifespan. Book upon book has been written about it.

But the music of The Beatles — and the multitude of styles they integrated — was the jumping off point to almost all of my musical appreciation that followed. From folk, hard rock, and experimental, to orchestration, hints of big band, and the American songbook — they opened me up to so many other artists and genres.

And I know I’m far from alone in that either.

I was happy that they recently won a Grammy for Now and Then, the last “new” song from the band that used emerging technology to allow Paul and Ringo finish up a John song that hadn’t been possible before — much like they did with George for the two new songs on the Anthology series in 1995.

That made me think about the controversy surrounding the song and the “AI” technology that made it happen, and bigger issues on the validity of multiple “remasters” of popular artists, and what the role of emerging technology should be.

At least in my opinion.

Now and Then

First to the song that won the 2025 Grammy for best rock performance.

As touched on, Now and Then was among the three John Lennon demo tracks recorded in the late 70s that Yoko Ono provided to the band to work on as “new” material when they were assembling the Anthology project. All three were recorded by John with a simple tape recorder, him playing piano and singing.

The first two, Free as a Bird and Real Love were cleaned up as much as then technically possible by ELO’s Jeff Lynne who was serving as producer for the three surviving Beatles.

I love both songs. Johns voice has a real haunting quality on Free and the two new verses added by George and Paul are nicely written to make the song lyrically cohesive. And they both sound great, as does Ringo’s drumming.

Real Love is a gem too, highlighted by George’s new slide solo.

And both videos were (as one would expect) done really, really well:

From a demo quality standpoint Now and Then was much more problematic.

Not only were the voice and piano stuck together, but there was a hissing sound throughout that couldn’t be easily cleaned up. Plus, George had had his fill of the project and the song was shelved after adding not much work.

Fast forward twenty years and the technology had radically improved.

While it was called “AI” in the press, the technology used to eliminate the hiss and separate voice and piano weren’t in the same category as some AI music that’s been popping up since it matured a few years ago. More on that coming up. This technology had been developed by director Peter Jackson and used for his Get Back documentary.

He didn’t use “AI” — he used technology that is able to distinguish and separate sounds. That could be hiss or separating drum and bass from the single track they where originally recorded on.

I feel the same about Now and Then as the other two songs. They’re good. They sound like the band because they are the band even if it is obviously different. If I knew nothing, I’d probably put all three in the upper middle in my rankings of Beatles songs.

It’s hard to think how lyrically better the song could be as an epilogue for the band, regardless of what John was thinking about when he wrote it.

And Paul’s current (and somewhat warbly) vocals give it an addition sadness. God bless Paul. The man continues to sing all his songs in the original key and kept 90% of his full-range prowess well into his 60s. That he is old and human injects the whole affair with a sense of deep, deep melancholy.

If you have any thought about this band it’s next to impossible that this doesn’t pull heart strings. And yet it’s touching as hell.

So, The Beatles won in 2025.

Some people were pissed, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. In an era of Beyonce and Taylor Swift, The Beatles actually only won two Grammys when they were together — Best New Artist in ’65 and Best album for Sgt. Pepper’s in ’67.

I like some of the other nominees in this years Best Rock Performance, but they’ll be fine.

It’s the damn Beatles.

Then and Now

There’s no doubt that there have been countless repackaging, re-releases, and new compilations put out by record companies that are 95% about profits. I’ll give 5% to the honorable idea that some do bring bands to a new generation which is good, but still about money.

Primarily since the advent of CDs — and especially as technology has ramped up — there has been a ton of remastered versions of band catalogues released and it has always divided music fans. The purist of the purists argue that the original work should never be touch. It is what it was and that is the end.

I’m on the other end of the spectrum, with some exceptions.

That original material is still there. If that’s all you want to listen too, that’s your choice.

But, for me, there have been technological advancements that have made many of these remasters well worthwhile. And, again, The Beatles a great example of why I think that.

Their first remaster came in 1987 when the catalogue was finally cleaned up for CD. Almost as important as the music was a rectification of their confusing cataloged itself. In America, Capitol Record released different versions of albums from those in England. I remember as a kid searching through record stores in Canada (that had both) and how confused I was.

What is this Yesterday and Today album?

The British releases (chosen by the group) was codified as the official releases, which was the only way to go.

Those remasters to CD were (to me at the time) fantastic. I never have been or will be anything approaching an audiophile, but they sounded better to me. In part because of the scratches on all my original albums.

Since the 80s there’s been a number of remasters, and it gets confusing between 2009 and 2014 and what was done when. Pretty early on everything was remixed for stereo. I was deeply thankful for that. Stereo has been the absolute norm for 50+ years. Almost every device you listen to — including a stereo — is mixed for stereo.

But for most of their career, everything was mono, and that’s what they mixed for. That’s basically mixing music for a single speaker. The last half of the 60s included alternative stereo versions, but they didn’t pay much attention to them because it was a niche.

That changed with Abbey Road which was only done in stereo. And even in its original album form, you can see how much they loved the new paths it opened.

I’m just happy from those remasters that took mono to stereo to not have to hear George’s incredible Taxman riff completely isolated on the left. And, yes, there’s been remasters of all the mono versions for any purist who wants to stay that way.

Given the leaps in new technology, the last series of remasters and remixes have come from Giles Martin (son of George, and worthy of the mantle) with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Let It Be, Abbey Road, and Revolver.

All were great. The Beatles had jumped to 8-track recording by that point, so these were more a “cleaning” and then an additional remix for stereo where little differences allow you to hear things you haven’t before — within the confines of the original mix.

But, it wasn’t until the Peter Jackson tech came out that a remaster producer could really change things.

From the beginning The Beatles had pushed on technology. They had FOUR tracks to record on. So, George Martin came up with the idea of “bouncing down” to contain multiple instruments on one track. That freed up more tracks, but it also hurt the quality each time you did it.

Giles used this tech first for the Red and Blue re-issues — the chronology I can still muster in my head. The Blue album (1967-1970) wasn’t anything amazing. They had eight tracks by that point. But, I will say that the remix of I Am the Walrus was bad to me.

The revelation came with the Red album (1962-1966) where the separation of those bounced-down tracks sounded revelatory. It gave those earlier songs a whole new sonic life.

Love is LOVE

The craziest Beatles project was Cirque du Soleil. The last project of George Martin (with Giles) and with the involvement and blessing of George, Ringo, and Paul it’s a total mash-up of Beatles that is, frankly, just cool as fuck. If you don’t know it, listen with headphones. It’s an Easter Egg trip.

Amy and I went to see the show in Vegas and it’s really one of the top 100 best things I’ve ever done. Cirque performers aside, the whole 5.1 surround mix of this mash-up was just amazing. The show at the Mirage has finally closed, and Vegas being Vegas, the Mirage imploded. But, wow, is Love a cool thing.

AI Prompts Me to Finish Up…

So, AI. No.

You could make what sounds like Freddy Mercury sing a Lady GaGa song. You could put John & Paul into a prompt to write a song about a palm tree and get something that sounds like that.

My bottom line is authenticity. You can play around with real tracks, but those tracks are — and what you hear — is real people emoting through their voices or their instruments. That’s the bottom line. At least on The Beatles.

And I say that as someone who is not a total snob on any number of artists and songs that I like that I know are pretty much manipulated from the get-go.

I’d like to stay on the real side of things. Or at least on the sliding scale of that.