Short answer: Paul McCartney has not made an absolute reversal on artificial intelligence. He accepted a narrowly defined restoration technique for the Beatles’ 2023 song “Now And Then,” but he objected to AI companies using creators’ work for training without meaningful permission, control or payment. The claim that he directly warned AI would “wipe out” the music industry is a secondary headline interpretation, not a confirmed verbatim quote.
What McCartney’s position actually is
McCartney’s public comments separate two very different uses of AI. One is artist-led restoration: applying machine-learning tools to an existing recording so the people finishing the track can isolate, clean and work with its parts. The other is generative AI trained on copyrighted music without the creator’s authorization, a license or compensation.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
![Now and Then[CD Single]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/416SziUMx5L._SL160_.jpg)
|
Now and Then[CD Single] | $9.49 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
![The Beatles 1967-1970 (2023 Edition)[2 CD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41-le7jcfxL._SL160_.jpg)
|
The Beatles 1967-1970 (2023 Edition)[2 CD] | $24.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Beatles - Now and Then | $15.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
![The Beatles Collection 1962-1966 The Red Album & 1967-1970 The Blue Album Legacy Edition [4 CD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51scVSQLdHL._SL160_.jpg)
|
The Beatles Collection 1962-1966 The Red Album & 1967-1970 The Blue Album Legacy Edition [4 CD] | $27.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
![Anthology 4[2 CD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41+KrWJfkyL._SL160_.jpg)
|
Anthology 4[2 CD] | $22.60 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
That distinction explains why his approval of the work on “Now And Then” does not conflict with his later criticism of AI policy. He accepted a specific technical tool in a controlled Beatles project; he did not endorse unrestricted use of artists’ catalogs by technology companies.
How AI was used on “Now And Then”
The source was an existing John Lennon demo
McCartney and Ringo Starr completed “Now And Then” in 2023 from a home demo recorded by John Lennon. It was therefore not reported as a wholly machine-generated Beatles composition or a new song written by an AI system.
#1 Best Overall
- The Beatles' double-A-side single for "Now And Then" & "Love Me Do" pairs the last Beatles song with their first UK single
Source separation isolated Lennon’s vocal
Machine-learning source-separation technology was used to distinguish Lennon’s vocal from the rest of the old recording. That made it possible to clean the track and build a finished production around material that already existed.
No synthetic Lennon performance was added
McCartney addressed the concern that the software had invented a new Lennon performance. MusicRadar reproduced his clarification: “nothing has been artificially or synthetically created.” In this account, the system separated and restored recorded material; it did not generate words, a melody or a simulated vocal take for Lennon.
Rank #2
- This landmark compilation has introduced generations of fans to the incredible history of the most storied band in music
Why his 2025 comments sounded like a reversal
In a BBC interview broadcast on January 26, 2025, McCartney criticized a proposed UK copyright approach under which AI developers could use copyrighted online material unless rights holders opted out. The disagreement was about permission and control over training data, not about every possible use of machine-learning audio tools.
The Associated Press reported his concern that young songwriters could create valuable work yet lose control of it. “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,” he said, according to AP’s January 25, 2025 report.
Rank #3
- The Beatles
- Now and Then
He also tied the issue to streaming revenue: “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.”
Restoration and generative AI are not the same use
| Question | “Now And Then” restoration | Generative training and output |
|---|---|---|
| Source material | An existing Lennon home demo and other recorded Beatles material | Large collections of creators’ works used to train a model, potentially producing new output |
| Consent and licensing | A project undertaken by the surviving Beatles and their collaborators | The UK proposal discussed in 2025 would have allowed use unless a rights holder opted out |
| Human creative control | People selected, edited and completed the recording; the tool helped separate sound sources | A model can generate music from prompts, raising questions about whose work shaped its capabilities |
| Attribution and compensation | The Beatles project remained tied to its known performers and creators | McCartney argues that original creators should retain control and receive the money generated by their work |
Did McCartney say AI will “wipe out” the music industry?
That phrase comes from secondary framing, including coverage by Futurism. The primary excerpts cited in reporting do not establish it as a direct McCartney quotation. His documented language focuses on artists being “ripped off,” losing ownership and incentives, and the need to protect creative workers.
Rank #4
No authoritative quantitative figure in the cited material measures an AI-caused “wipeout” of the music industry. His warning is about a possible economic and creative effect if companies can absorb artists’ work into training systems while the people who made that work lose control of the resulting value.
What his position means for musicians and listeners
- Permission matters: McCartney’s objection is strongest where copyrighted recordings are used for training without a meaningful authorization mechanism.
- Opt-out is not the same as opt-in: Under the UK approach discussed in 2025, creators would have had to reserve their rights by opting out rather than agreeing in advance.
- Payment should follow value: His AP comments argue that revenue reaching streaming platforms should flow to the people who created the underlying work, not only to technology companies.
- Tool use depends on the task: Separating a vocal from an old recording preserves a human-led performance; generating a new sound in an artist’s style creates a different consent and attribution problem.
- Headlines can blur the distinction: Calling “Now And Then” an AI-created Beatles song hides the fact that the recording began with Lennon’s own demo and was completed by human collaborators.
The accurate takeaway
McCartney’s record is consistent: he accepted AI-assisted restoration when it served an existing Beatles recording and did not synthesize Lennon’s performance. He objected when proposed rules could let AI developers train on living creators’ work without permission, control or compensation. That is a conditional position on AI, not a simple reversal.
Quick Recap
Best Value
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.
