Yesssssssss I’m so happy you used the “I don’t wanna lose you” part I was heartbroken that they left it out, I thought it was the most beautiful part, you absolutely killed it, it sounds just like it would be on magical mystery tour or pepper, this is a lot more Beatles, especially the part where John scuffs the words in classic fashion and the “I know there’s love for me” part, thanks for bringing the beautiful buried sides out again. Your arrangement is amazing, wish George Martin could’ve heard this. ❤️👏🙌
@@TheBobbymcd just checked it out! Thanks for recommending it :) (sorry for this long tangent 😅) I honestly don’t think Paul’s being bossy, I think all four just have different artistic tastes in their own right, although John and Paul wrote a lot together they had differing ideas musically, like John wasn’t into the whole medley bit on pepper and abbey road, he was into simpler structures, and I think Paul wanted to honour John’s cutthroat approach, but two of his best friends are no longer with him to work on the song and help it take shape, which has always been the case, that’s gotta be tough, (I mean imagine the pressure of doing a George Harrison slide guitar solo by yourself) representing the group, with a song you didn’t write, though it feels like a mistake to leave out our favourite portion of the song, maybe he thought it was too precious to touch, since it’s incomplete, he didn’t want to write over John’s work cuz it was too pure, you never know, Paul’s quite reserved about his feelings, or perhaps he thought it was directionless to the rest of the song, which you can’t really blame him for, he’s been writing music longer than a lot of people have lived, which definitely sets standards, I think Paul really did want the final Beatle song to be wholehearted, but you know a Beatle record must be more sophisticated to him I would obviously imagine, cuz he took the liberty of changing the “would love you” line he stretched “Love you” where as John just stretched “You” not a huge or necessary change I feel, but you know Paul, not bossy, just a perfectionist, just like the other three! This is a man who’s had a lifetime of music apart from the Beatles, he’s been Paul McCartney way longer than he’s been a Beatle, and he’s the only writer remaining, plus he hasn’t worked on making a Beatle record since 95, he’s bound to take some time to slip into the Fab Four suit again, although unfortunately, this was the last time, and it hurts that it could’ve been more perfect, but it’s still a wonderful record. ^_^
@@TheBobbymcd haha! I get that a lot 🤭😁 I can’t seem to help but write down “books” in the comment sections from here in France 📝😅 glad you enjoyed it! I’m well :3 that’s very kind of you, I hope you’re doing well too 🙂 There’s nothing more fun than talking about The Beatles!! Wonderful music and an incredible story, just like best friends, they had some friction amongst them, but they were always there for each other, George thought ‘Now and Then’ was and I quote “rubbish”, he still showed up for the sessions, he even quit the group during ‘let it be’, but he soon returned with a smile :) and yes of course! There was a spark between John and Paul from the start! After-all Paul was asked to join John’s group because John was impressed with him right, also remember the time John admitted that ‘Here There and Everywhere’ was better than his own music on Revolver? Though John’s songs are gorgeous on that album. George even later said in an interview, that he was getting to know McCartney and going out with him, years after the Beatle split, their friendship is something I truly envy, it went beyond the group itself, you can see it in the pictures in the studio, the way they looked at each other ☺️ they had tough days like you said, but that spark always took over in the end. It was ‘Real Love’ 💖🪕💌 …. Isla (Paul finally admits in ‘Here Today’ he finally says to John he loves him, can’t help but tear up about that 🥲) (Sorry about writing another little book again 😅)
and on a prtactal level there was so little to work with, after unthinkable the voice, words where recovered from scratchy compact cassette? you would think that every word word would of been used at least one in the remake?
Yes, the "I don't want to lose you" appearing once works well as a bridge and seems authentic, since it is using more of Lennon's original. The interesting thing for me is that the "official" Beatles version with McCartney's bridge instead, the song could be about John missing his creative partnership with Paul, but the "I don't want to lose you..." sounds more like it is written as a love song to Yoko, and echos some of the lyrics from Lennon's Double Fantasy solo album of that same time, when John was concerned about the relationship ("I didn't mean to hurt you..."). To convincingly make it into a "Beatles" song, this part had to be left out. But this is what leads me to think that Lennon's intention is that it was a solo song. Even if the song was hijacked and repurposed with the full Beatles treatment, John might still be flattered that his former bandmates made the effort, especially if it also drew more attention to his original version.
@@YesterdaysPapers that's my favorite part too but, I think they thought you can't sing "abuse you" in 2023... And John's falsetto was not perfect too :(
@@Trunchisneither was the chorus on Free As A Bird and they very elegantly completed it and Paul sung it. He could have done the same here, it was just one line left to be complete and could have been a nice duet. Instead, they just cut the bridge, which in composition terms was the transition from the verse to the chorus. So, to me, they f*cked up John's original composition...
That was phenomenal! I especially liked the collaged element from "I Am The Walrus" in the middle part. You really caught the flavor of that time period!
Do you really want to tangle with me? Someone who knows music style and the time period? Were you even born yet, fool? You realize that I Am the Walrus came out in 1967, whereas Now and Then was a song written in Lennon's later years when his styling was totally different decade and style. Not go play with your toys in the basement. @@mariuspoppFM
I think McCartney got the best out of Lennon's fragment of a song and melody and Giles Martin get a great job on the production too. 'Now and Then' is a mix of now, and then. The remnants of the old Beatles sound, coupled with the input of the two surviving members of the Beatles, Starr and McCartney. It's a poignant, almost sepia-toned, farvel to an era in popular music we won't see again.
Your very elegant and sensitive version is an excellent demonstration of why the middle section („i don’t wanna loose you“) is so sorely lacking in the official Beatles version - both in terms of content and music. Thank you!
YP, you elevated this song worthy of the Sgt Peppers/Magical Mystery Tour era. Don’t know why the powers that be didn’t call you to take on this project? 🤔😂
I am thankful that they didn't sample obvious Beatles sounds. Would sound as fanmade than this. Don't get me wrong, I like this too but it clear its fanmade an plays on nostalgia.
@@ricardo_miguel13Pretty much everything Beatles-related churned out by EMI/Apple/PMcCartney since 1970 has relied upon nostalgia - the "Beatles industry" is a nostalgia merry-go-round.
Stunning version! Thanks for taking the time out to actually make this song happen and the video to. Your channel is elevated above most on youtube, it needs preserving incase the dreaded happens like my own a few times. ❤❤❤
Honestly, this one should gain enormous traction in a just world! I realize now just how much the original "Beatles" release plays on nostalgia and is so obviously meant to tug at our heartstrings, whereas your version is simply revelling in the vision that it was just another song from way back when. It's kinda hard to put it into words, but there is a difference between making something new that sounds old and making something new that sounds new, but implying that "now" is 1967. Or reimagining the times rather than the sound, if that makes sense. I think this is a great example of that.
To be fair, if all four of them were still alive and they decided to get together and record a new song, I'm pretty sure they would have wanted to do something new, and not just try to re-create something from the sixties. I like the new version, but it's also great that people can do their own versions like this one.
I'm not a fan of the new song either. You've done a good job with your version. I just wish you had access to the cleaned up vocals. Better vocal track and your music: this could be a #1.
@@leatherpiggyboyDas Lied wurde vor langer Zeit geschrieben. Diese Version klingt viel authentischer, da die Stimme nicht so klar zu hören ist. Wunderbar! Danke!
@@YesterdaysPaperswell done sir..and I never adress anyone like that.. but you're channel was great anyway..and adding the bridge section.. you're in the magic club
As a fan since 1963 you have made this a Beatles record. Although I liked the release, I thought the official version was good but not Beatles. This is excellent.
@@caryheuchert Good Day, Cary, I wondered at the time whether McCartney hadn't purposely made it " Beatley" to wind people up. Wonderful as it is. Regards, Robin
i prefer this to the official version, though i still think it should have just been a solo lennon release (could you do a solo Lennon style version, perhaps in the style of Woman or no 9 Dream?)
Exactly what I’ve been thinking. I can’t see it as a Beatles release no matter how hard I try. The perfect last Beatles single was Let It Be in 1969. Now and Then is a John solo track with other Beatles playing on it, like a lot of his solo material was 😅
David, I refer to the psychedelic period roughly 66-69 in which a big number of artists were influenced by this style. Mainstream acts such as the Beatles and Stones all showed elements of psychedelia in their sound. These days psychedelic music is used in a much broader context than previously. Even phased guitars or vocals are called psychedelic.
@@phillipmcalister4848 Thanks for taking the time, Phil. As far as I know Pink Floyd initiated a "total" psychedelic sound, (Saucerful of Secrets era,) if I can put it that way, although you could be right about The Beatles' especially with Revolver. It just did manage to sneak into the public domain ahead of The Floyd. Also The Byrds and producer Gary Usher psychedicized The Notorious Byrd Bros. (1967) I never found The Stones to be psychedelic. They were just cornball with that one album they shouldn't have released. Funny thing, psychedelia. I always found Jefferson Airplane to be the essence of psychedelic yet they never used the effects. And 1966's Byrds' Fifth Dimension album, with quintessentially psychedelic Eight Miles High? McGuinn's guitar playing patterns were jazz/ sitar influenced I believe. And today?In an age of growing authoritarianism, rapidly shrinking intelligence and zero sense of history, it's a safe bet there are a thousand different spellings of "psychedelic" and an equal number of variants of shoulder shrugs when people are asked what it is.
Fantastic. You are a great producer. No question that this version has the chord changes and even the strings as they should be. I like the Sitar intro. I did not like the Strings on Now and then. That is not how George Martin would have arranged the orchestration. Even Tony Visconti said it. Brilliant. I'm speechless.
Weird how the computer AI voice of John Lennon sounds the same as he’s son Julian Lennon’s voice. I was thinking why couldn’t they just use Julian over a computer
This sounds much more like an actual Beatles song. The AI thing seems to have borrowed heavily from George's "When We Was Fab" and generally sounds like George all the way around.
The new version was not composed by AI, all they used AI for was to separate and clean up John's voice. The modern musical composition is probably mostly Paul.
One great thing about the Beatles is they evolved from month to month - in appearance and music style. They compressed several lifetimes into those few years.
I'd like to hear you redo this with more vibrant drums and maybe some nice upper register bass fills, a little fuzz guitar through it, maybe sitar like sounds. The thing with the beatles back then.. They simply wouldn't have made something quite so pedestrian as Paul and Ringo have done. It would have been more far out. Kudos to you though..you are pushing it into a nicer direction. The bottom line is that Lennon would mess about with his arrangements plenty, and there's no doubt that the sketch would be entirely different had he recorded it. :)
It does have a kind of 67 vi be, but the lyrics and the way John is singing isn't a good match. Also, your backing track is too loud. It is smothering the vocals.
Much better than the over processed, over thought, over treated release. Feels much more like a Lennon song in your version. The released version has no soul. Well done mate
This song has the "shoe gaze" vibe of songs from 1967,which was Rock's magical year with all the peaceful dreamy soundscapes it all had.1968 would prove to be Rock's in the mainstream most aggressive and assertive and even violent sounding year of music to even to this very day and The Beatles were in the thick of it all the way . The Beatles leave an amazing legacy and may very well be remembered for centuries to come in the way we remember Bach,Beethoven and Mozart as the greats of their times.
The original song is nice, but it dosn’t have the correct drum snf bass sound. Paul used Rickebacker bass with the muff dampner on that gave the hard bumpy sound, and Ringo often had towels on the drum skins to muffle the drum sound in 68-69
@@johnp515 I know the Beatles sounded different over the years. However, I would point out from the vantage point of the year 2023, most of their music does sound of its time. That's the way music is, and the way it ages. I happen to love the 60's 70's sound of rock and the Beatles, especially psychedelic music. That's why I subscribe to this channel. The new Beatles song, Now and Then, sounds modern due to modern recording techniques, modern instruments, whatever makes it sound contemporary because it was recorded today. Sure, I hear its Beatles elements It's most definately a Beatles song. That's fine. I love the song. However, it doesn't prevent me from loving the song when it is reimagined in my favorite "sound" from that Beatles era. Can't we appreciate this song too? It really makes John's voice the focus and includes the other section he wrote. John's voice is magical in this interpretation. We all have our opinions.
Very nice job, has a lot more depth. I found the real Beatles recording thin and lacking in innovation. Sentimental and catchy but was disappointing too
Some of the mixing seems quite dry (still like the idea of keeping the low fidelity from the original vocal recording regardless) but this is the most melancholic rendition I've heard yet, even out of all the cover attempts before McCartney announced the single, simple but still immersive arrangement.
Arrangements bit strawberryfieldish and the voice of Lennon a bit too low but you should definitely be the mastermind of a possible follow up to Now and Then.
I'm not a huge fan of the new version and I like what you've done here. But saying that, the vocal quickly gets lost after the initial verse. I like the feel of this better although it sounds more like a demo or studio outtake than a finished Beatles song from the era.
Very damn good! The drums are a little suspect, but overall, great job and kudos aplenty for not using AI ! A neat companion to the young guy who has done the song a La 1964. Both of you have helped prove my point that those 4 ordinary guys from Liverpool are damn near unique in their never ending ability to inspire creativity in others.
I hate the new "Beatles" song. Let the dead sleep. John didn't make the demo in order to work with Paul. In the 90s George didn't record his parts with any enthusiasm, and he called the effort "rubbish." Their estates are violating their wishes with this fake last song and that's a terrible thing to do. Their widows may claim "He would have loved it," but the boys had PLENTY of chances to get back together and didn't. Hey, when I pass away, don't do things in my name that are the opposite of what I want, please. Especially not creepy AI unmasking of audio or those weird images in the official video. Let the dead sleep. But! I like the Yesterday's Paper effort better than the so-called Beatles version. It's not claiming to be something it's not. Yesterday's Papers is not saying "This is an authorized Beatles song!" and that makes all the difference. And it sounds way better, too. It's got more late-60s psychedelic pop to it. Nicely done.
Better than the McCartney/Starr Version of Lennons old cassette track! Congrats, you absolutely captured the sound and spirit of those psychedelic years!
My god, this version is beautiful. I love the Mellotron flute and strings. Also, thank you for adding in the original bridge! I know a lot of people say it doesn't fit, but to me, it adds to the emotional instability/moodiness that this song is soaked in. I also love the fuzz guitar that comes in in random points in the song . John's voice sounds lo-fi and very mid-rangy, but that's to be expected, considering you used the original demo without Peter Jackson's complex MAL AI audio restoration software. I was a bit terrified at how clear the MAL software had made John's voice. The vocals on this version probably sound like what Jeff Lynne got out of his mix when he was working on it in 1995.
Great work! I'm afraid that it will be removed from RU-vid very soon though. It does sound a lot like 1967, while the official version to many people sounds too modern.
![What If the New Beatles Song Was Re-Imagined as a 1967 Beatles Recording? [Now and Then]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
