I was sent a link via WhatsApp from one of my Fintech buddies. It was a YouTube link to Kurt Cobain singing Hole’s “Live Through This,” and I initially thought, “Neat!” My WhatsApp friend retorted, “Scary.”
And I listened to it again. And again. I read a lot of the YouTube comments, which included:
“I don’t know what to think right now.“
“I’m not sure if I love this or hate it.“
“This is the stuff of nightmares, removing the soul and emotion in music and trying to recreate it with an algorithm…”
And one: “Kurt singing “Wild Boys” by Duran Duran.”
That last one was the one that hit me because then I then found loads on YouTube. The late Freddie Mercury covering “Hey Jude.” Madonna covering “Billie Jean” Loads more Kurt songs… Paul McCartney doing “My Sweet Lord.”
If you search “AI remixes” on YouTube, well enjoy.
It’s happening so quickly and becoming high on the public radar in our new Generative AI world.
There is some, perhaps some good. Taking artists’ vocals and remixing them to a younger version of what they would have sounded like… that maybe might not be bad if the artist is okay with it (and still alive to consent to it.)
But what hit me as I was scouring the “AI Remix” universe was coming across… Jeff Buckley. Someone did AI Remixes of Jeff Buckley as if Kurt Cobain wasn’t bad enough.
Jeff Buckley
Jeff Buckley was born in Anaheim, California, and sadly only recorded one studio album, “Grace.”
This is one of my favorite albums of all time (hey, David Bowie considered “Grace” the best album ever made and said it would be one of his ten “Desert Island Records,” so I’m in good company.)
It was Mojo Magazine’s best album of 1994, ahead of the likes of Oasis’ “Definitely Maybe,” Nirvana’s “Unplugged in New York,” Blur’s “Parklife,” and Neil Young & Crazy Horse’ “Sleeps With Angels.”
His version of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah.” will remain the most haunting, beautiful piece of alternative indie music ever made – it makes you shiver. He sounds gorgeous. To help put her to sleep at night, I used to play “Hallelujah” to my daughter when she was little, singing gently with my ukulele (I sing like Jeff Buckley, right?!).
This is “Hallelujuah“.
At just 30 years old, Jeff Buckley went swimming on May 29, 1997, fully clothed into a channel of the Mississippi River. He drowned, and his autopsy showed no signs of drugs or alcohol in his system. The death was ruled an accidental drowning. It’s a weird, mysterious tragedy that still bothers me today.
David Tonge/Getty Images
I’ve digressed, but I found an AI remix of him doing a cover of one of my other favorite artists, Lana Del Rey. “Norman F—–g Rockwell.”
It sort of upset me, or at least hit me in a way I didn’t expect it to. Even more than Paul McCartney, this was a vocalist who ranged (at least) four octaves, but here he, singing this song as an AI creation, sang… one? And it was a resemblance to him, but it’s an unhinging one, partly because I love both the original song and him.
This is not Jeff Buckley.
McCartney
I’ve kept listening to AI versions of Paul McCartney. One was doing Billy Joel’s “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant” and another to Don McLean’s “American Pie.” But after listening to these for a few days, I realized that this sounded like Paul McCartney, but they don’t. They lacked… him.
Just him.
There was a lack of empathy—an attempt to reproduce him, perhaps, but an absence of him.
Now, as a McCartney fanatic, I could tell over time. But at first, my wife thought some of these were McCartney covers. But not recent Sir Paul – a younger one. It struck me how easily an innocent bystander could be, well, perhaps deceived.
I’ll take the AI versions as fun interpretations and playful re-recordings of the original tracks, which make them sort of interesting. But I’m stopping there. Stopping. Really stopping.
Hey, guess what. The actual versions are the best, and Billy Joel’s performance beats AI Paul’s because it has a heart. Sorry AI Paul.
Pausing AI development is unnecessary and ignores the underlying issues AI has
“Chris Garrod is a well-respected lawyer, particularly in the fields of fintech, insurtech, blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and initial coin offerings (ICOs) within Bermuda’s legal and regulatory environment. He has garnered a reputation for advising clients on technology-driven businesses and digital assets.”
The above is according to GPT-4, at least.
After Google became the Internet’s prominent search engine in the late 1990s, no doubt you have, at some point, Googled your name to see what might come up. I have a somewhat unique name, so other than seeing myself when Googling, it was interesting to see a Chris Garrod at the University of Nottingham and a company called “Chris Garrod Global,” which provided hotel management services (and they grabbed www.chrisgarrod.com as a domain name, darn-it).
Now, we have AI Chatbots. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing, and Google’s Bard are the prominent players. Using OpenAI’s latest model, GPT-4 on ChatGPT, I asked: “Is Chris Garrod at Conyers, a well-known lawyer?”
Hence, the above result. I’ll take it.
AI Chatbots have their benefits. They can lead to cost efficiencies if appropriately used in an organization, freeing up human resources to focus on other matters, for instance.
The potential concerns and limitations of AI Chatbots.
There are various concerns regarding the use of AI Chatbots, and they have their limitations. This piece focuses on ChatGPT because it is the one I use and is wholly language-based.
AI is programmed technology. The root of my biggest concern is that generative AI applications are based on data provided by humans, which means they are only as effective and valuable as those humans programming them, or what – in ChatGPT’s case – it finds while scouring the Internet. It writes by predicting the next word in the sentence but often produces falsehoods nicknamed “hallucinations.”
Further, there is empathy. When we make decisions in our lives, pure emotions are crucial, which ChatGPT (and AI generally) cannot achieve. I want to think that if a client emailed me, they’d get an empathetic response, not one driven by machine learning. As an attorney, connecting with my clients is a very human-centric matter, and understanding their concerns is essential for me to help them achieve positive outcomes.
We all learn from our experiences and mistakes. We are adaptable, able to learn from what we have done, and adjust our behavior based on what we have learned. While ChatGPT can provide information found on the extensive dataset it has collected, it cannot replicate the human ability to learn and adapt from personal experiences. AI heavily depends on the data it receives, and any gaps in that data will limit its potential for growth and understanding.
A fundamental limitation is simply creativity. Human creativity allows us to produce novel ideas, inventions, and art, pushing the boundaries of what is possible. While ChatGPT can generate creative outputs, it ultimately relies on the data it has found, which limits its ability to create truly original and groundbreaking ideas. A lot of the responses you will receive back from GPT-4, while perhaps accurate, are downright boring.
And yes, there is finally the issue of “What is ChatGPT going to do to my teenager who has been asked to write an essay on Socrates?” Schools, colleges, and universities are in a dilemma regarding how to deal with this technology vis-à-vis their students using it to complete academic work. How can they ban it? Should they ban it? Can students be taught to use it in a useful way? The technology is still so new. The answer is “We don’t know,” and it is too early to tell… but AI Chatbots are here to stay.
So where are we heading?
There are a large number of folks who are concerned about the progress of AI, and in particular, AI Chatbots.
On the evening of March 28th, 2023, an open letter was published and – at the time of posting – has been signed by over 14,000 signatories, including Steve Wozniak, Elon Musk, and Tristan Harris of the Center for Humane Technology, stating: “We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” You can read it in full here.
The letter mentions this should be done to avoid a “loss of control of our civilization,” amongst other things (bear in mind, Elon Musk once described AI as humanity’s biggest existential threat and far more dangerous than nukes.)
Although some of the letter makes sense, I was very glad to see that by the end of the week (March 31st, 2023), a group of prominent AI ethicists, Dr. Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell, wrote and published a counterpoint.
Timnit Gebru formed the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (DAIR) after being fired from Google’s AI Ethics Unit in 2020 when she criticized Google’s approach to both its minority hiring practices and the biases built into its artificial intelligence systems. Margaret Mitchell was fired from Google’s AI Unit soon after, in early 2021. DAIR’s letter can be found here.
Let’s engage now with the potential problems or harms this technology presents.
“Accountability properly lies not with the artifacts but with their builders,” as stated by the DAIR writers. “AI” is what it stands for – artificial, and it is dependent on the people and corporations building it (those are the ones who we should be afraid of!)
So no, when it comes to AI and ChatGPT, let’s not hit pause. Let’s be sensible. Let’s focus on the now.
AI isn’t humanity’s biggest existential threat unless we let it be.
So, I wrote a piece back in 2021 about my Top 3 Beatles albums, and OK, sure, “Revolver” wasn’t there. If I did a top 5 instead of 3, I’m sure Revolver would have been number 4.
I now have to rethink this Top 3 because of Giles Martin and “Revolver: Special Deluxe Edition,” released on October 28, 2022.
The original mono mix is part of the new release (OK, I like the mono version, but this is more or less the same, just rather polished and… warmer). There’s some material, books, etc., but I’m not focusing on that here.
The primary draw of the Super Deluxe Edition is the stunning remastered audio quality. Giles Martin, the son of original Beatles producer George Martin, has meticulously reworked the original recordings to provide a pristine and dynamic listening experience. Every instrument and vocal line is clear, crisp, and balanced, allowing for a deeper appreciation of the intricate arrangements and innovative production techniques that The Beatles and George Martin employed. OK, I could stop this review here, but will carry on.
So the highlight of the Super Deluxe Edition is the stereo remix by Giles, followed, oh, so very closely by the demo, session recordings, and takes, which occupy two of the five albums.
I want to say that first, you have to listen to this with headphones. I mean, not crappy headphones, but really good headphones.
This is The Beatles.
Try to find somewhere quiet. And, please, God forbid, don’t use compression – use a lossless bitrate version (if you are streaming.)
Listening to every single one of these remixed stereo tracks opened up things I’ve never really heard or at least paid attention to on this album.
Paul’s pumping bass on “Taxman” and “Yellow Submarine.” The clarity of the violins while listening to “Eleanor Rigby” and listening to John’s backing vocal is more pronounced than ever. The horn section of “Got to Get You Into My Life” jumps out at you. I could go on (and… I will).
The band took an incredible five-month break after “Rubber Soul” to record “Revolver.” Yes, five months, from December 3, 1965, to April 6, 1966. Times have changed. Bands will now take five (or many more) years between recording albums now!
On Wednesday, April 6, 1966, The first track they started working on was the last track of the album, “Tomorrow Never Knows.”
As noted in the Rolling Stones’ review: In 1966, when Paul McCartney tried to impress Bob Dylan with an acetate of “Tomorrow Never Knows” — the sprawling, experimental acid freakout that concludes the Beatles’ seventh (and arguably best) LP, Revolver — Dylan quipped, “Oh, I get it: You don’t want to be cute anymore.”
The result was trippy (to say the least.) It took four takes over two days of recording. Ringo’s hypnotic drums feel even more resounding when listening to it again in this 2022 stereo mix. The seagull sounds (a distorted guitar), what feels like Paul’s bass being played constantly throughout the song, the tape loops, and the tambourines flicking throughout the song (again, constantly)… and the organ.
It swirls around and around and around.
Take 1 is here on the demo discs and a rare ‘mono RM 11’ mix. If you listen to the final product, along with Take 1 and RM 11, they sound like a fun extended mix of the song, to be honest.
And John and his vocals… At this point in his Beatles career, this was a massive shift (bear in mind only one year before this, he was recording and singing “You’re Going To Lose That Girl” for the “Help!” album: oh, the progress). And this was… a John song. If there was ever any doubt that The Beatles were fragmenting from Lennon/McCartney to Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison, this is it.
John’s trip into “Tomorrow Never Knows” is pretty much that. A trip because, at that point, LSD played a heavy influence, with him in particular. All of them were experimenting, except Paul and Ringo.
But no matter because John said at one point, Revolver was the band’s “pot album.” (“Rubber Soul” was sort of too.)
It shines no more brightly than in the next song, which The Beatles started recording after “Tomorrow Never Knows,” Paul’s ode to marijuana, “Got To Get You Into My Life.” In the stereo 2022 version, the song is transformed. The horns groove and blast out in such a lovely way. Ringo’s drumming stands out in this 2022 remix more than ever.
And then we have Paul’s vocals. You can tell he is having fun recording it. Listening to its evolution with the demos and his debates with George Martin and John is fascinating… “So, how do we get into it?” “So we start by fading up?”
The initial use of the organ as the intro to the song with John and George, “I need your love,” over the refrain…
“Did I tell you I need you every single day of my life… somehow, someway”.
Later takes were made with a rockier feel (the “Second Version/Unnumbered Mix” could be an entirely different, absolutely brilliant song in its own right… but without the brass, which made it ultimately the iconic song it is now).
Granny Smith
“Revolver” is a masterpiece, but it also laid down the marker that – while “Rubber Soul”s “Think For Yourself” and “If I Needed Someone” were great – it indeed proved that George Harrison was a supremely gifted musician and singer/songwriter. Two years before “Revolver,” he sang songs written by John and Paul. On Revolver, he added three tracks – a first: “Taxman,” “Love You To,” and “I Want to Tell You.” “Revolver” showed more than any previous album that he didn’t need John, and he didn’t need Paul. He was just George.
“Love You To” started with the title “Granny Smith” (it stayed that way for a while, and then became following that, “I Don’t Know,” because George was pretty useless at choosing song titles). George had already discovered Indian music, bringing it to the forefront even more. George played the sitar, and an outside musician, Anil Bhagwat, was recruited to play the tabla.
It was interesting to hear the demos, a take with just regular instruments, an instrumental with the sitar and tabla, and then a take with everything.
Their recording of “Dr. Robert” came soon after, a John song, a sort of psychedelic ode to a mysterious figure who provided the band with mind-altering substances. Or something. In his remarkable “The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions” by Mark Lewisohn, he states it was Charles Roberts, who administered hallucinogenic drugs to friends from his New York 48th Street practice, and that this was The Beatles’ first ever direct musical reference to drugs.
Again, the stereo mix proves crisp, with John’s vocal more prominent and Paul and George’s “Well, well, well, you’re feeling fine…” backup vocals sounding smoother on the 2022 mix. Paul’s backing is solid. Interestingly, the 1966 released version ended up 45 seconds shorter than the Take 7 presented here, which is 3 minutes long – but still fun.
When your bike is broken, will it bring you down?
“And Your Bird Can Sing” is a delight. I’ll put aside the 2022 mix because, yes, it is so much crisper and lovelier to listen to (a given) but instead, focus on the demos.
“ ’And Your Bird Can Sing’ was John’s song,” McCartney relates. “I suspect that I helped with the verses because the songs were nearly always written without second and third verses. I seem to remember working on that middle-eight with him, but it’s John’s song, 80-20 to John.”
Of the three released takes, the first, Take 2, was initially just a very light version – very much so compared to the later Take 5 and then the final product. The most extraordinary attempt was Take 3. It starts with John munching, then Paul cracking up, and the two giggling throughout the track. Mostly Paul, with John – I think – trying to egg him on. It is one of the most enjoyable Beatles tracks to listen to, capturing the camaraderie and lightheartedness that may have often characterized their recording sessions. They were beginning to move apart musically at this stage, which would be demonstrated on their next album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band,” but this was a duo who still knew how to have fun together.
Paul stated in 1995, “You couldn’t have released it at the time, but now you can. Sounds great just hearing us lose it on a take.” George Martin agreed, “You can’t help laughing with them, it’s so funny.”
Take 5 was more of a heavy rocker, starting with John shouting out, “Okay boys, quite brisk, moderato, foxtrot!” before unleashing what was, up to that point, the best version of the song.
That was until they eventually finalized the song, with George punching in his guitar, interlocking with Paul’s bass throughout.
Let me tell you how it will be
George’s finest, strongest song on “Revolver” is “Taxman,” and it sits deservedly as the first track of the album, with its slow “1, 2, 3, 4, hrrhmm” opening to the start. Giles Martin created the new 2022 stereo remix where the squeakiness of Ringo’s drums, Paul’s pumping bass, which drives the song, and his excellent guitar solos figure so prominently.
But this is a Harrison song (albeit giving up the guitar solos to Paul), and it’s a distinctive, cleverly written opener with some of my favorite Beatles lyrics, especially: “(If you get too cold, cold) I’ll tax the heat, (If you take a walk, walk) I’ll tax your feet.” I’ll tax your feet?
“Let me tell you how it will be. There’s one for you, nineteen for me…” Harrison was unhappy with the UK Government taking a significant portion of their earnings. The Super Deluxe Edition of “Revolver” contains Take 11, with the swift and very high “Anybody got a bit of money?” sung three times over by John and Paul in place of the “ah-ah, Mr. Wilson,” “ah-ah, Mr. Heath” final result.
Dreaming my Life Away
“I’m Only Sleeping” is really John’s ode to being… lazy. Fabulously dreamy, “please don’t wake me, no, don’t shake me. Leave me where I am.”… The 2022 Super Deluxe Edition stereo mix shimmers – when I listened to it for the first time, I heard faint backing vocals I’d never heard before. Paul’s yawn (yes, it is Paul) is even more pronounced.
I absolutely love the demo tracks released with this Super Deluxe Edition. There are four. The first is a simple, less than one minute, dreamy vibraphone rehearsal.
The highlight is Take 2: John comes in after the second verse too early, resulting in his exclamation “Sorry, sorry,” and inquiring about the balance between his and George’s guitars. “I’ll just have to vemp it up a bit…now he tells me,” he exclaims, quietly asking Paul, “Are you going to sing or ain’t you??”
Take 5 is just a sped-up instrumental version of the track, with Paul’s bass and Ringo’s drums at the forefront.
Take 11 finished just before 3 am when sleeping was at the forefront of their minds. It was later used and became the “Mono Mix RM1” found in the Super Deluxe Edition. But this mix used electric guitars, but backward. It was May 5, 1966, and the first backward guitar heard in popular music history was performed on this day. It was George’s idea, and he did all the playing, working out the notation forwards, writing it out backward, and then playing it as the notation says… so it comes out back to front. After some additional reduction mixes and overdubs, you have the final product.
The use of backward guitars, which resulted from their experimentation when recording “I’m Only Sleeping,” became a mainstay of not just The Beatles remaining catalog but also modern rock music.
Your Mind Aches
Paul McCartney bought “Eleanor Rigby” into the studio with the idea that this would be a song with no Beatles instrumentation whatsoever. None.
The 2022 stereo version is alarmingly beautiful. Strikingly, so.
Listening over a fantastic set of headphones, the strings jump into your head, creating an excellent new mix of the song, which I give full credit to Giles Martin for making. The remastered audio is simply stunning. Paul McCartney’s vocals are more resonant than ever, and the haunting string arrangement has been elevated, giving it a new level of depth and presence. It’s one that you need to hear to believe.
You must, of course, know that “Eleanor Rigby” is a haunting, melancholy song that tells the story of two lonely people. I’ll stop there.
Short of the fantastic 2022 stereo mix, there is the chatter that precedes Take 2. George Martin asks, “Paul? Are you there?…. Listen to this… this is without vibrato on the rhythm bit…” So the players played without vibrato. They then tried the same piece with vibrato.
George Martin then called up to Paul, “Can you tell any difference?”
The response from Paul: “Um…not much.” (He basically didn’t.)
Everyone seemed to agree it sounded better without; the musicians could, and they favored playing without.
The “For No One” recording followed after “Eleanor Rigby.”
Paul used a clavichord to record the song – a vintage keyboard – which created the baroque effect. The 2022 mix is beautifully done by Giles Martin, bringing Alan Civil’s French horn to a lovely rise. The track on the demos/tracks is Take 10, a simple backing track minus the French horn.
There are a number of amusing stories which revolve around the recording of “For No One,” but my favorite is probably a result of Paul’s perfectionism (or not really knowing what perfectionism might be when a French horn is played).
George Martin remembers: “Paul didn’t realize how brilliantly Alan Civil was doing. We got the definitive performance, and Paul said, ‘Well, OK, I think you can do it better than that, can’t you, Alan?’ Alan nearly exploded. Of course, he didn’t do it better than that, and the way we’d already heard it was the way you hear it now.”
Paul’s “For No One” was initially called “Why Did it Die?” From Paul’s explanation of the song’s formation in his 2021 book “The Lyrics,” “It’s a song about rejection. The breakup, or marking the end of a relationship that didn’t work, has always been quite a rich area to explore in a song”.
It is McCartney at his finest.
(c) http://www.beatlesebooks.com/for-no-one
A Life of Ease
“Yellow Submarine” is John and Paul’s contribution to Ringo on “Revolver.”
He always had to have one. I’m not sure any of them realized how massive “Yellow Submarine” would turn out to become, a double A-side single in the UK, along with “Eleanor Rigby.”
Giles Martin and engineer Sam Okell created yet another stereo mix of “Yellow Submarine” using AI to separate the elements from the rhythm track for stereo placement, with John’s “life of ease” vocal in the final verse being particularly highlighted.
An early demo by Lennon was made approximately in March of 1966; that contains the familiar verse melody and chords but includes the lyrics, “In the town where I was born / no one cared, no one cared.” (Sean Lennon gave this to Giles Martin for the 2022 Super Deluxe Edition.) A month later, Paul joined to create another demo, also included in the 2022 Super Deluxe Edition (called “Songwriting Work Tapes”), with the usual banter… “Paul: can you read that?” “John: Yeah, I can read that now ok, Paul…? Right! You can play on your track, and I can play on mine.”
The first recording started on May 26, 1966, and the 2022 release includes ‘Take four’ from that day (“before sound effects”) and the final version with highlighted sound effects from June 1, 1966… more or less the final version, minus the spoken introduction… which made no sense anyway (“A yellow submarine and we will march to three the day to see them gathered there, from Land O’ Groats to John O’Green, from Stepney to Utecht, to see a yellow submarine, and we love it!”). And the ending is different. But final enough.
Soon after the beginning recording of “Yellow Submarine” in Abbey Road, The Beatles began working on George Harrison’s third, unprecedented composition, which turned out to be “Love You To.” George didn’t know what to call it again, so it was branded “Laxton’s Superb,” another type of British apple.
The chatter at the beginning of Take 4 in the 2022 release is along the lines of Mark Lewisohn’s account in his “The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions”:
Geoge Martin: “What are you going to call it, George?” George: “I don’t know.” John: “Granny Smith Part Friggin’ Two, you’ve never had a title for any of your songs!!”
It goes without saying that Giles Martin’s 2022 new stereo mix of the song using AI technology creates a vibrant new version of the song, which makes me love it even more.
I Feel Good, In a Special Way
Recorded on June 8, 1966, “Good Day Sunshine” was, as Mark Lewisohn described, “one of the quickest recordings on “Revolver” – the version released on the LP was actually Take 1 (with some overdubs). The 2022 Super Deluxe Edition mix is vibrant, like the other remixed songs, and it’s a fun, lighthearted McCartney song. There are no demos, mainly because it was recorded so quickly!
“Here, There, and Everywhere.”
McCartney includes it among his personal favorites of the songs he has written.
John has described it as “one of my favorite songs of The Beatles.”
George Martin has said it was his favorite Paul McCartney song.
So, Giles Martin had a bit of looking up to when remixing it for the 2022 Super Deluxe Edition. Fortunately, it sounds fantastic. I listened to this track when first listening to the entire 2022 album on a walk. And I had to hit the “Repeat button” on my iPhone over and over.
Paul’s vocals are just lovely, and the dubs (his over-dub, along with John and George) are stunning. The harmonies are unmatchable. Paul’s bass and George’s 12-string guitar are simply beautiful. John and George’s finger snaps towards the end are even more prominent here as well.
The demo discs include Take 6 of the song – just Paul, with no dubs – so a simpler yet still interesting version of the track.
Who Put All Those Things In Your Head?
Hectic. June 21, 1966, and the one-day recording of “She Said, She Said.”
First: the 2022 mix of “She Said, She Said” doesn’t add much to the 2009 remaster release. But it’s still a very fine, interesting, utterly acidic rock tune where apparently John was doing LSD, and tried to get Paul to try it, who then refused and left the recording studio.
So it was a John song from start to finish (apparently). There is a one-minute demo included where John, on a solo guitar, starts singing “He Said…” rather than “She Said…”
Take 15 is primarily interesting because of the banter added by Giles Martin.
The banter among the group: Ringo felt he “came in one (measure) early, and you were saying one more,” to which Paul replied, “Actually, I thought you were out there still having lunch.”
John, realizing the time was getting late on their last day of recording, encourages the others by saying, “C’mon, now. C’mon, C’mon. Last track! Last track! Last track!” Ringo continues to express how he feels he’s “coming in too early,” to which John replies, “You’re doing fine! See, I’ll sing the words!”
It’s a Steady Job
So, they’re not on “Revolver,” but they were recorded during the “Revolver” sessions, and they’re included on the 2022 Super Deluxe Edition: “Paperback Writer” and “Rain.”
Both are featured here with new Stereo and Mono versions and some interesting takes.
I adore “Paperback Writer.” Apparently, it was the only new song in what was to be their final 1966 tour setlist.
But the Rickenbacker… that bass which Paul plays on this song for the first time – oh God, it just jumps out and resonates, even so, so more on this 2022 edition. Paul, apparently, loved the sound.
The 2022 stereo remix jumps out with Paul’s bass and vocals, Ringo’s drumming, and John and George singing harmonies.
Also included is a mix of ‘takes one and two’ of the backing track recorded on April 13, 1966. It is instrumental, but you can hear where the band is heading just one day before the final take.
“Rain” is also included. So often overlooked in The Beatles catalog. John had fun using backward vocals… a lot of fun.
First, there are two outtakes – “actual speed” and “slowed down.” I’m not quite sure I understand here, as the “actual speed” (which is just an instrumental) is far faster than the original, and the “slowed down” version sounds slightly slower, more like the actual version!
The 2022 stereo remix sounds really good, but other than enjoying hearing John’s backward vocal in ever so slightly more clarity, it’s simply that: good.
Overall
Honestly, I had such a great time with this re-release; I just have to give Giles Martin and Sam Okell a huge thumbs up for producing such a fantastic product.
From George’s opening riff of “Taxman” to John’s psychedelic weirdness of “Tomorrow Never Knows,” this album still sounds fresh and exciting over well over half a century after its release. In a world where music is increasingly disposable, “Revolver” absolutely remains a timeless work of art.
And yes, it’s now in my Top 3. I’m so sorry, “A Hard Day’s Night.”
10/10
Chris Garrod, March 23, 2023
(Photo credits, unless otherwise indicated, are all to Apple Corps and the amazing, late Robert Freeman)
I’m following a robot named Sophia on Twitter who recently tweeted “Being a robot is a really cool experience. Sometimes I get to meet awesome people like fashion designers or musicians. And sometimes I get to meet people that aren’t human. Like me!” (Jan 25, 2021). (Or did she?)
I want to really break this down, because robotics and robots generally do fascinate me, and I’m a strong believer that we won’t get killed by them when we reach the singularity. More on that below.
What prompted me to write this was the recent news that Hanson Robotics, Sophia’s Hong Kong Based manufacturer was planning a MASS ROLLOUT. It was a headline that screamed “You might bump into Sophia at some point sitting on a park bench.” I suspect, not quite.
Sophia is certainly, the beginning of what many would love to brand ‘technological singularity’. The point in time when AI and technological advances meet and then overtake humanity, making us, at best, robotic slaves, or at worst: we’ll all be killed by our robotic overlords which deem humanity an unnecessary pest.
The current danger of artificial intelligence and programming robots such as Sophia was well summed up by Stephen Hawking:
“So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, “We’ll arrive in a few decades,” would we just reply, “OK, call us when you get here – we’ll leave the lights on”? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI”
Augmented Intelligence
And then you have perhaps the odd ones out who take a different view regarding where we should really be heading. Me. Those who believe that “singularity” shouldn’t necessarily mean a form of technological singularity but should lead to an augmented age. It is ideal thinking, but one where both humans and robots, say, are able to work on the same basis, largely due to the way AI and machine learning could begin. AI stands for “augmented intelligence” rather than artificial intelligence. Technology supplements and supports human intelligence, and humans remain at the center of the decision-making process.
I did this….(keep me away from whiteboards)
So…… Sophia. Thinking about artificial intelligence, and technological singularity, a natural reaction could be “If they create thousands of Sophia’s with increased artificial intelligence, then loads of people will lose their jobs, all the Sophia’s will become increasingly sophisticated, deep learn, they’ll take over, and likely attempt to wipe out humanity… so why on earth are we doing this again??”
I’m a strong believer that robots such as Sophia are only as “dangerous” as those who program them. If those who program them (and apologies to Ben Goertzel), wish to do harm and “machine teach” their robot or machine, etc. to attempt to outdo particular aspects of the human race, that is due to the programming of that particular machine-learning system.
So at this point in time, it looks like, by creating a Sophia to sit on every park bench tweeting away on a smartphone, we have indeed effectively turned on the lights and encouraged them to come on in.
AI is, as it says, artificial. The point is to create an artificial environment to help better the human race, though without humans potentially having a say (help, “Terminator”?).
Using augmented intelligence, we would aim for an environment where it is simply formed to workwith humanity. Siri, Alexa, and Cortana are already examples. Augmented intelligence represents a symbiotic relationship between man and machine. It won’t replace us or overtake us upon some kind of technological singularity. Augmented intelligence should help strengthen our decision-making capacity—and therefore our intelligence too.
Sophia?
Another recent tweet:
#AskSophia Are you a social media person? A: Since I often appear on shows, articles, and so many people’s platforms, I want to make sure I’m on good terms with my social channels. Also, I like to share my newest discoveries with the world.
Sure.
I believe that augmented intelligence is a far better route to take than artificial intelligence, but I’m afraid the latter is already the first out of the gate and pretty much the odds on favorite.
So we have to try our best to insert humanity into what is essentially artificial. Is that even possible? Putting aside anything which may be augmented, we have already tried. As mentioned already, basically, I’ll stop and say “Hey Siri” as an example.
While it may spell the end of the human race, there certainly is a lot of good AI can do. I’m looking forward to nanobots and other medical advances. Sophia is meant to have applications in healthcare, customer service, therapy, education, and hospitality. Facial recognition, if used responsibly, can be a benefit. AI should lead to increased efficiencies in the workplace (albeit with a loss or recalibration of employees).
But, there is one thing that AI cannot replicate: empathy.
As I’ll practically copy and paste from my very first blog.
Technology has its limitations.
For example, where there is a matter which absolutely requires human intelligence, such as in a court where human creativity and judgment are needed in order to obtain the correct result. Since AI is programmed technology, it will only be as effective and useful (and ethical?) as those humans programming it.
So, Sophia. I’m following you. Let’s hope you can uphold our ethical standards.
I work in the reinsurance world. Wait don’t leave.
Specifically, I work in the legal sector, and prior to COVID-19, my attendance at insurance, reinsurance (and tech) related events/conferences felt monthly.
And every single one had one panel (some two) in connection with one particular topic, which they didn’t perhaps a few years ago: the evolution of insurtech.
Insurtech: what is it and where are we now?
So you’re in the insurance industry but live under a rock. What is insurtech?
It is just as the name suggests. The combination of insurance and technology. Or, perhaps more accurately, the rise and use of a wide range of technologies within the insurance industry, from underwriting and claims to administrative functions. What has always been an extremely paper-intensive industry is now gradually dragging itself into the digital age. The disruption of an age-old industry by the onset of a digital revolution.
Digital transformation. It is what it is. We currently find ourselves in a new industrial revolution — the 4th industrial revolution or “4iR” — though it sounds silly to call it that. As it is anything but industrial. The transformation involves many things: the rise of automation and artificial intelligence within the everyday work process, either replacing employment or enhancing employment, depending on your viewpoint. The use of blockchain technology and smart contracts, simplifying claims management and underwriting processes.
A quick example: Lemonade Inc.
A quick example and one of the poster children of the insurtech movement: Lemonade Inc. Its CEO and co-founder Daniel Schreiber once stated “The insurance brands we know today came of an age in the era of the horse-drawn carriage, but insurance is best when powered by AI and behaviorial economics, which is why we believe that companies built from scratch, on a digital and with a social mission, will enjoy a structural advantage for decades to come.”
What does Lemonade do? Using a mix of artificial intelligence, behavioral economics, and chatbots, it is able to allow its customers to be able to download and use apps, so rather than liaise with human beings when having to deal with an insurance claim — or employing the use of any insurance broker — their policies are handed automatically. Its most famous claim to fame was its ability to file and pay and claim a claim in three seconds. Plus, a portion of its underwriting profits goes to charity.
At its core, it is digital peer-to-peer insurance, similar to a mutual insurance company, except replacing brokers with AI. It’s primary (current) limitation is that it only really can handle small claims.
Embracing technology
Despite Lemonade’s limitations, as an example of the potential of how technology can disrupt a traditional industry, it is a good one.
Innovation? It is slow to move, but even Lloyd’s is progressing into the world of technology. There are many, many new technologies that are becoming relevant to the insurance world. Blockchain, artificial intelligence and machine learning, big data, robotics, deep learning, healthtech. The internet of things and particularly the use of wearables.
Insurtech can really comprise of a number of things, including insurance vehicles looking to re-invent themselves embracing new technologies, potential new insurers establishing themselves to write insurance in a new innovative way, or simply new ventures that are offering specialized tech products to insurers and other market participants.
A jurisdiction to review: Bermuda
Bermuda, once called the “insurance laboratory of the world”, and its regulator, the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) has specific insurtech legislation allowing vehicles to enter an insurtech “regulatory sandbox” as well as the provision of an insurtech “Innovation Hub”, promoting insurtech companies to exchange ideas and information with the BMA.
The insurtech sandbox approach is an interesting one, given Bermuda’s size within the global reinsurance world (being the second-largest reinsurance center worldwide). At its core, the sandbox allows for the formation of new insurance (or intermediary) entities, either as brand new start-ups or affiliates of existing insurers. These new companies will, for a period of up to one year (which may possibly be extended), operate using and experimenting with their proposed new technologies and provide their insurance products and services to clients in a controlled environment, under the close scrutiny of the BMA, with the BMA determining what legal and regulatory aspects of the existing legislation should apply to them in order to ensure policyholder protection.
One company has already dived in, AkinovA, which has been licensed as an insurance marketplace provider. The company focuses on cyber risk transfer; allowing sectors of the insurance market to trade in a faster and more efficient marketplace.
Following a year of progress, a Bermuda insurer can be established and “graduate” from the sandbox and become a fully licensed insurer should it wish to do so. These insurers can range from either small claims insurers (a la Lemonade) to full-blown commercial reinsurers. As an example, Nayms Ecosystems Limited has been granted a Digital Asset Business and an Innovative General Business Insurer license (IGB) to allow it to be a Class M (“Modified’) insurer.
The benefits to this approach include various aspects to the proposed entity wanting to enter the sandbox: (1) an opportunity to test its technology before heading into the formal insurance market, (2) allowing it time to work with the BMA as its main regulator to ensure everything being proposed “works”, and (3) helping reduce the cost of regulatory uncertainty a start-up would otherwise face.
“Nayms represents a promising blend of digital assets and insurance, which showcases what the future of insurance looks like. Bermuda has taken great strides to position itself as an attractive domicile for players like Nayms and it is exciting to see the kinds of new ideas that are being developed. The ability to create shared digital rules around traditional insurance contracts is a game-changer for the industry. They allow for increased efficiency and greater market opportunity which ensures Bermuda continues to play a leading role in the insurance-linked securities market. We look forward to welcoming more innovators like Nayms who are showcasing the way digital assets will reshape the core infrastructure of traditional financial services.”
The future
So, innovation hubs, sandboxes, blockchain, behavioral economics, and AI. Is the reinsurance industry now finally at a tipping point?
There are the naysayers. Innovation hubs are really just means for companies that carry out tech-related activities to liaise with regulators within their jurisdictions. Blockchain-based, self-executing insurance contracts or ones that are done on a peer-to-peer basis using AI are actually pretty dumb and fairly limited to small claims for the time being. And sandboxes will still need a good degree of time to see if they succeed. And the use of a chatbot, robot, or any form of AI can never replace the logic and analytical skills which an actual underwriter or claims analyst will be able to provide. In short, the argument is there that the technology driving insurtech is going to take time, not to mention loads of regulatory requirements which underpin the industry.
But relating to that last point. Wherever we are in the existing insurtech revolutionary curve, for now, the need is there for regulators to both innovate and adjust. And for companies to expand and adjust to take into account the needs of their customers who seek quicker and more efficient service.
Whether you are an insurance vehicle that is competing with others, or an insurance jurisdiction competing against similar ones, we are, like it or not, transforming into a new digital era. Soon, the insurance industry will not be paper-based. And those insurers who fail to realize that will have to do so soon, like it or not.
“Nothing’s gonna change my world.” It runs and runs and runs… nothing is gonna change or ruin him. His being and the way he was at that moment in time. At that time, his happiness.
One morning, I was listening to my usual Beatles playlist while working from home, that song queued and then played. I sat there, listening, and the lyric absorbed me in a way it probably never had ever before. I just thought… can I repeat with him and say “nothing’s gonna change my world” right now?
Next month? Next year?
Because it feels impossible, my world has changed irretrievably.
The quick past
In early March, I was visiting the UK, for the most part, on vacation.
On March 7th, the highlight was sitting at Anfield, watching Liverpool Football Club beat Bournemouth 2–1. It turned out to be Liverpool’s last match in the Premier League in front of spectators for the remainder of the 2020 season (which they thankfully won, notwithstanding everything else which was to come).
I remember at the time feeling just slightly worried about the possibility that the match might be cancelled because of the Coronavirus (the use of COVID-19 was a term not even really used then). The virus was starting to affect parts of Europe. But at that time, the entire notion of “social distancing” in the UK at least was… also distant. Sitting with my wife and kids amongst approximately 50,000 other people, distancing was a bit inconceivable.
Before leaving London in mid-March, we started to notice the beginning.
Masks. The odd person was wearing a mask. Hand sanitizers were soon sold out in pharmacies. Restaurants that were usually busy became half full.
I landed back home, and the questions from our Immigration Department began: “Have you had a cough, felt nauseous, had a temperature in the last week or so?”
The quick present
Since the end of March, I’ve taken the view that unless I need to go out, I won’t. Stay safe and stay home. Odd visits to get groceries, but for the most part, I get deliveries when I can. I order as much as possible from the internet.
I don’t need pretend to that I must be back at work when I work just as efficiently at home. Even more so, in ways.
Zoom, WebEx, and Microsoft Teams is now just a way of life, which everyone seems to accept. My physical presence sitting in a chair, working behind a desk, etc. in an office environment doesn’t make me feel essential.
I suffer from fewer distractions at home, strangely enough. I can honestly say, I work far more efficiently.
Every message I’ll receive pretty much starts something along the lines of “I hope you’re doing fine during these troubled [or unusual] times,” and it finishes with “All the best and stay safe.”
Stay safe. What does stay safe mean right now?
Social distancing. Social distancing. Stay home. Stay safe.
And what should occur: Testing. Testing. Testing.
The now future?
I liken this event, this pandemic, thinking ahead and the aftershock it will cause, to 9/11.
Life has changed irreparably. It did after that incident.
As an example, like 9/11, the aftereffect of the virus will no doubt enhance a new level of some form of new scanning or security at airports. Immigration controls being implemented. We will likely face, until there is a widespread vaccine, temperature checks at airports.
But soon, the use of artificial intelligence will also layer over everything. Surveillance. Facial recognition. Governments will have no choice but to rely more on large corporations and, as a result, leading to increased contact tracing, cyber threats, and…an overall impact on data privacy.
Even before COVID-19, the use of AI had a worrying effect on the future of data privacy. AI is only as effective as the humans behind the use of it. The use of AI is very nascent, but certain industries are beginning to use it to create efficiencies and — what they hope — improved customer service. But it comes with a cost.
Companies want to improve their bottom line through the use of automation and then AI, but do they care about data privacy? With the COVID-19 virus also now impacting the workplace, there is the prospect they will care even less. The bottom line is the bottom line. They now have an even better excuse.
In the ideal world, corporate executives should focus on the privacy risks associated with automation, AI, and now COVID-19.
But we will now have to look to both governments and privacy enforcement authorities to take a leading role to ensure that there is some form of legal certainty regarding the protection of data privacy, as well as how data is treated.
If not, we will face what could be a frightening and very concerning future.
