Paul McCartney Invents a New Kind of Protest Song
The culture war of the future has just started
Paul McCartney is releasing a new track. It’s his first new song in five years—so that’s a big deal. But there’s something even more significant about this 2 minute 45 second release.
The song is silent. It’s a totally blank track—except for a bit of hiss and background noise.
What’s going on? Has Paul McCartney run out of melodies at age 83? Is he nurturing his inner John Cage. Did he simply forget to turn on the mic?
No, none of the above.
Please support my work—by taking out a premium subscription (just $6 per month).
Macca is releasing this track as a protest against AI.
His new ‘music’ is part of an album entitled Is This What We Want? It’s already available on digital platforms, and is now coming out on vinyl. All proceeds will go to the non-profit organization Help Musicians.
“The album consists of recordings of empty studios and performance spaces,” according to the website. In addition to McCartney, more than a thousand musicians are participating, including:
Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn, Billy Ocean, Ed O’Brien, Dan Smith, The Clash, Mystery Jets, Jamiroquai, Imogen Heap, Yusuf / Cat Stevens, Riz Ahmed, Tori Amos, Hans Zimmer, James MacMillan, Max Richter, John Rutter, The Kanneh-Masons, The King’s Singers, The Sixteen, Roderick Williams, Sarah Connolly, Nicky Spence, Ian Bostridge, and many more.
I keep hearing that protest music is dead—and has been losing momentum since the Vietnam War. But there’s now a new war, and it’s stirring up creators in every artistic idiom.
They are fighting for their livelihoods and IP rights. And, so far, it’s been a losing battle.
You can see the new battle lines across the entire creative landscape.
Vince Gilligan, one of the most brilliant minds in TV, admits that he “hates AI.” He calls it the “world’s most expensive plagiarism machine.” For his new show Pluribus, he has added this disclaimer to the credits:
This show was made by humans.
AI represents the exact opposite of creativity, Gilligan warns. It steals the work of others. So any attempt to legitimize it as a creative tool is built on lies. A bank robber might just as well pretend to be a financier. Or an art forger claim to be Picasso.
Filmmakers are reaching the same conclusion.
Oscar-winning director Guillermo del Toro says he would “rather die” than use AI in his movies. You might even view his latest film Frankenstein as a pointed attack on technology gone wild. He describes Dr. Frankenstein as
similar in some ways to the tech bros. He’s kind of blind, creating something without considering the consequences.
But here’s where things start to get really creepy. The headline above comes from Variety, a leading voice for the entertainment industry. But the new publisher for Variety is a huge fan of AI—and sees it as essential to the future of the periodical.
It’s worth noting that this publisher started her career at Variety by selling ads, not writing. And that gives you a clear sense of the people on the other side of the battle field.
The people who have built careers on their creativity are now mobilizing. But the overseers who prioritize finance and profits will fight them at every turn. You might think that these two parties need each other—but that’s not how the bosses see it.
They love AI because it will reduce their dependence on human artists—who are often stubborn difficult people. Even worse, great artists are expensive people, so the suits inside the boardroom dream of replacing them with servile bots.
Very few of the bosses will say this openly. They can’t afford to stir up their creative workers—not yet. It’s too early and AI tech isn’t robust enough to replace all those folks in the cast and crew. But if you don’t think this is the plan, you don’t know how the people in those expensive boardroom chairs think and act.
Just take a look at the new AI “talent studio” Xicoa. A few weeks ago, it introduced an AI actress named Tilly Norwood. She’s a sweet brunette who looks like the girl next door—provided that you live inside a simulation.
The creative community was disgusted by this. But movie studios and agents reached out to the company, eager to explore ways of working together. In the aftermath, Xicoa announced that it is developing another 40 AI-generated actors.
According to one inside source, all the studios and major film companies are looking at AI projects. But everything is top secret, wrapped up in non-disclosure agreements—so we can only guess at the details. But the threat is clearly escalating at a rapid pace.
We see the exact same thing in music. Big records labels complained about AI—until they got a cut of the action.
So Warner Bros had a strong copyright infringement case against an AI music company—but then decided to reach a settlement.
Universal Music did the exact same thing.
Sony is also cutting AI music deals.
I believe that the music industry could put AI companies out of business—the robbery of IP is so severe that this could be Napster all over again. Flesh-and-blood musicians would be protected, and real creativity could flourish.
But the bosses don’t want that. They will sell out the musicians—just so long as they make some money in the transaction.
And the exact same thing is happening in publishing.
Let me repeat: AI companies could be stopped simply by prosecuting them for violating copyrights. Why isn’t this happening?
Who wants to hear a bot sing of love it has never experienced? Who wants a painting made by something with no eyes to see?
The answer is simple—and sad.
Instead of protecting artist rights, the big companies in the culture sphere are seeking collaboration and quick settlements. Creators absolutely need to understand this. It’s not clear that they can trust their own labels or publishers—or maybe not even their own lawyers.
This is the new culture war.
And it’s very different from the old culture war—which was a dim reflection of politics. This new battle is happening inside the culture world itself, and threatens to cut off artists from their own longstanding partners and support systems.
This new culture war will only escalate. The stakes are too high, and artists can’t afford to stay on the sidelines. But they face heavy odds, with the richest people on the planet opposed to their efforts.
How will this battle get decided? It really comes down to the audience. If they prefer AI slop, we will witness the total degradation of arts and entertainment.
I’d like to think that people are too smart to fall for this crude simulation of human creative expression. Who wants to hear a bot sing of love it has never experienced? Who wants a nature poem from a digital construct that exists outside of nature? Who wants a painting made by something with no eyes to see?
Will the public find this charming. Or even plausible? Maybe a few twelve year olds and fools, but not serious people. That’s my hunch.
In any event, we will soon find out.
I suspect most people don’t care whether something is AI-generated as long as it entertains them. AI is all over social media. It's all over Substack, too. I see writers on Substack using AI-generated images for their stories. Other writers talk about using ChatGPT. I see YouTube ads with musicians promoting the use of AI to finish their tracks. No musicians or talent required. AI is replacing artists in every form of digital art.
Live music is the last refuge for musicians. Once hologram concerts become acceptable, real musicians will be a novelty. And as AI improves, it is likely no one will be able to tell what is real or fake. These are sad times for artists.
You yourself have reported that AI company stocks have gone into the toilet. Don't you think the Hollywood executives would notice that, or are they still drunk and stoned like they always are?