Today I actually saw the news in a media outlet in my country. I think it's great to use AI if, unfortunately, Paul is no longer with us tomorrow and he leaves something signed giving consent for his work to continue in the hands of AI. In fact, I showed some friends some songs I managed to clone with the voices of famous artists, and although they acknowledge that the results are "impressive," they were also alarmed by how a "robot" could replace a person. However, that is actually a fallacy. A robot or AI will never replace a person, but it can replace their work. Let's consider a hypothetical scenario: an artist passes away and can no longer make albums. But AI could clone their voice, and albums could continue to be produced. It won't be the artist, but their work will live on for future generations. This could happen with Paul McCartney, and I'm sure he will choose to have AI "replace" (in quotes) his voice when he is no longer here.

What I strongly disagree with, and have never agreed with, is Paul using material from Lennon. Lennon is no longer with us, and he should have decided in his lifetime whether he wanted to make another album or not. Even worse, using AI to clone his voice. Lennon should have left consent to someone saying, "Yes, I accept that AI clones my voice." This is something that I have never liked about Paul. I adore Paul in many ways, but it has always bothered me that he uses Lennon to expand his fame. I might be mistaken, but that's how I feel.

 

I've not read anything that suggests to me that they are cloning his voice. It sounds like they're doing what they did with Free As A Bird and Real Love but couldn't with this one because the tape was too nasty. It sounds to me like "AI" in this case just means ACON and Izoptope. Stuff they didn't have in the 90s. Otherwise, just ask Julian to sing. Way easier and less controversial.

 

Maybe it's a subtle way to ease people into accepting the future possibility of cloning Lennon's voice. "If we did it before, we can do it again." When in reality, these are different things – taking a tape and cloning a voice.

 

Maybe...

 

Yes, I think we should wait until AI can clone people and then we can ask the cloned John Lennon whether he consents to having his voice cloned. He probably wouldn't mind as long as any royalties were going to his estate.

 

I thought he was Paul McCartney!

 

Or Kevin Parker during Innerspeaker years, before he adopted that whiny nasal falsetto.

 

I don't know, I would doubt that, Lennon was very idealistic.

 

Or Neil Innes... he can nail both John AND Paul really well. But especially John.

 

I may be old fashioned... But for me, once its finished, it should remain that way... Especially because 2 of them are deceased. It may sound like Lennon but we'll all know its not him.

Just IMHO.

 

Paul is already making pseudo-Beatles releases for years.

Btw, how good is this voice cloning? Does it have as much control as Vocaloid and similar? Or you just randomize takes until the robot manages to produce a decent one?

 

I saw similar/same quick bit about this on the news, and it wasn't specific at all about the software which was used. Sure, it is some sort of comping/training done; but it sounded like the process was really focused on cleaning up the existing audio of the vocals. Rather than the usual current uses of switching a voice with another, or generating it entirely. Maybe it will be a greater % original source material than we expect.

 

It's incredible, I've cloned the voice of Paul, Dido, and Amy Winehouse. Some things sound better than others, it's a matter of dedication (trial and error) Here at AS I have shared links for those who want to try it, they are Colab links.

 

Here’s how decent it is for the average user at the moment. It’s blatantly obvious Imagine was used for the learning material.

 

I agree, but this not a remake or a new song. It's from a demo, so you might say it's not finished in the first place, and "AI" (really a separation algorithm) is used to isolate Lennon's voice. So they're not doing anything else to it, thank fuck.

 

Poor John, still getting shopped after all these years.
One of the perks of my being a commercial failure is not being exploited when I'm dead.
Just ask Elvis, Michael Jackson and Prince.
And Taylor Hawkins...
The ring of the cash register is the only song the music biz likes
(And some of the "artists").

 

Sir Paul is the 4th richest musician in the world. It is an insult to accuse him of being after exploiting dead John Lennon.
Sir Paul had the same idea some 30 years ago, but waited for the right time to do it technically correctly, and that moment came now.
It is nice that Sir Paul is still alive, and in his eighty (b. June 18, 1942) willing to once again pay respect to John.

 

Sir Paul has a reputation as a cheap, money grubbing bastard.
Most extremely rich people do.
It's how they get rich

 

mmmhhhhhh .... smells like money

 

Nah, that's Yoko. I mean yeah, maybe Paul's tight to some degree, all rich people are (well, not George) but I think Paul is about music first. He's not touring in his 70s for cash. He needs to play. And he wants new music out there.