iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
No clear reversal is documented. Paul McCartney accepted a narrow use of AI-assisted technology to isolate and restore John Lennon’s vocal for the Beatles’ 2023 song “Now And Then.” His later criticism was aimed at a different use: AI developers training on creators’ work without meaningful permission, control or payment. The claim that he warned AI would “wipe out” the music industry is secondary framing, not a verified direct quote in the reporting cited here.
Did McCartney change his mind about AI?
The evidence points to a distinction between different applications of AI, rather than a change from support to opposition. McCartney accepted technology that helped finish an existing Beatles recording. He objected to a proposed copyright approach that could allow AI developers to use copyrighted online material unless rights holders opted out.
Those positions are compatible: using a tool to recover a voice from an existing recording is not the same as training a generative system on creators’ work without their agreement. The key questions are what material the system uses, who authorized that use, how much creative control people retain, and whether the original creators receive attribution or compensation.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →How was AI used on “Now And Then”?
Released in 2023, “Now And Then” was completed by McCartney and Ringo Starr from a home demo recorded by Lennon. Reporting describes machine-learning source-separation technology being used to isolate Lennon’s vocal from the existing recording, allowing it to be cleaned up and incorporated into the finished track.
#1 Best Overall
![Now and Then[7' Single]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31WjgWT+TZL._SL160_.jpg)
- The Beatles' double-A-side single for "Now And Then" & "Love Me Do" pairs the last Beatles song with their first UK single
That is an AI-assisted restoration of source material—not a report that AI composed a new Beatles song or generated a new Lennon performance. In a clarification reproduced by MusicRadar, McCartney said “nothing has been artificially or synthetically created.” The distinction matters: the technology helped separate and restore material already present in Lennon’s demo; the finished song was not presented as a wholly AI-generated composition.
What did McCartney object to in the UK copyright debate?
In a BBC interview broadcast on January 26, 2025, McCartney criticized a proposed UK approach under which AI developers could use copyrighted material unless creators opted out. The concern was that creators might lose practical control over work used to train AI systems, while others capture the value those systems generate.
Rank #2
The Associated Press, in a report published January 25, 2025, quoted McCartney describing the risk to emerging songwriters: “You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
He also argued that streaming revenue should go to the people who created the work, rather than a technology company. As the AP quoted him: “The truth is, the money’s going somewhere. When it gets on the streaming platforms, somebody is getting it, and it should be the person who created it. It shouldn’t be some tech giant somewhere.” His remarks focus on ownership, control and compensation—not on a blanket rejection of AI tools.
How do the two uses of AI differ?
| Question | “Now And Then” restoration | Training on creators’ work |
|---|---|---|
| Source material | An existing Lennon home demo; machine-learning technology was used to separate and clean up the vocal. | Copyrighted online material used to train AI systems under the proposed approach discussed in the UK debate. |
| Consent and licensing | The reporting describes the restoration process but does not establish broader licensing details. | The proposal McCartney criticized would have allowed use unless rights holders opted out. |
| Human creative control | McCartney and Starr completed the song using the isolated vocal; the reporting does not describe a synthetic new Lennon performance. | McCartney’s concern was that developers could use creators’ work without meaningful permission or control. |
| Attribution and compensation | The cited accounts do not state how revenue or attribution for the restoration was handled. | McCartney argued that creators should retain a claim to the value generated from their work. |
Did McCartney say AI will “wipe out the music industry”?
That phrase should not be treated as a confirmed verbatim quotation. It appears as secondary framing in coverage by Futurism; the direct language attributed to McCartney in the Associated Press report concerns artists being “ripped off,” losing control of their work, and creators not receiving money that he believes should go to them.
His remarks raise a serious concern about how AI training could affect creative workers and their incentives. But the cited reporting does not establish that AI will wipe out the music industry, nor does it provide a quantitative measure of industry losses caused by AI. The more precise summary is that McCartney warned that an opt-out copyright model could leave creators’ work open to use without their consent or fair compensation.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
