AI can clean up and preserve musical classics but music buffs are rolling their eyes and gnashing their teeth

Their complaints are about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to restore and enhance old footage of the Fab Four as they travelled and drew screaming hoards worldwide. The series, which was first broadcast 30 years ago, is now streaming on Disney+, with a new ninth episode and previously unreleased studio outtakes.

I have watched some of the footage in question and I have to say the AI effect didn’t jump out at me—but then, I’m no Beatles megafan. Had I been, I might also be describing them as looking “like wax statues from the creepy Museum of Dead Rockers.” Heated discussion on the techniques has spread to X and Bluesky, where one viewer called the smoothing of the musicians’ faces “ghoulish.”

The relationship between the Beatles and AI is a delicate one, and, in some respects, reflects the complex ethical tussle over AI’s presence in creative work.

In the same month that this documentary came out, it was announced that McCartney had contributed a “bonus track” to Is this What We Want, an album that comprises only ambient noise from empty recording studios. The record is a protest of the UK’s move to amend its copyright law to be more favourable to companies building AI.

And yet, in 2023, McCartney gave his blessing to Now and Then, a ‘new’ Beatles track that had harnessed AI to restore Lennon’s previously unusable vocals from a demo tape kept by his widow, Yoko Ono. The song went on to win a Grammy award for Best Rock Performance—with some referring to it as the first “AI song” to win the accolade.

How do we account for this ethical discrepancy?

Producer Giles Martin told the NME that it was important not to treat all use of AI in music alike. In Now and Then, and also the new Anthology documentary, there was no fresh generation of artificial music or footage. “It was purely about removing elements and cleaning up others,” Martin, son of Beatles producer George Martin, told the music magazine. “I’m not mis-synthesizing anything, but I’m amazed what we can do. There are times when at first you can hardly hear Ringo’s drums, then I can get a kick drum out of it.”

This seems like a fair and reasonable distinction: fixing the old, but not generating anything new. So then the issue becomes how much AI restoration is too much? When should the footage just be left alone, given that a large part of its charm, like a crackle from a vinyl record, is in its authentic old aesthetic?

That’s clearly a matter of taste—and some Beatles fans feel Disney+ has, in this instance, gone too far. Among other concerns, they say the mass distribution of ‘improved’ footage will make it harder to track down the original work.

Expect this debate to grow more intense. As the market for old music is booming, fans of large acts with valuable catalogues are becoming increasingly concerned at the apparent laziness on display as labels and estates rush to push out anything they can call ‘new’ material to eager fan bases.

Ahead of the release of the Michael Jackson biopic next year, for instance, many of the singer’s iconic music videos have been shoddily ‘upscaled’ using AI. In Black or White, Jackson at times appears to have braces on his teeth. In Jam, the entire video is lacquered by a soft focus and fuzz now synonymous with AI creations.

“They aren’t just ruining Michael’s art,” one fan wrote on Reddit. “They are also ruining our memories.”

The sloppiness can extend beyond the music itself: Fans of the late Beach Boys co-founder Brian Wilson were upset to find that a website commemorating his life and career seemed to have been rushed through using AI tools. One picture of Wilson was captioned “a smiling woman in a beige winter coat.”

In 2024, Sony spent $2.5 billion on back catalogues amid a mad scramble from private equity groups to do the same. Classic songs are seen as a reliable alternative asset class, with artists such as Pink Floyd, Queen and others just about guaranteed to have consistent long-term appeal, which means income streams that’ll last decades. But as these acquirers seek a rapid return on their investment, the line between bringing new life to beloved art, or cheapening an artist’s legacy and authenticity, seems perilously thin. ©Bloomberg

The author is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist.