Music technology is a very broad field. There are lots of tools for songwriters, particularly those who have no real music training and no foundation in music theory. I don't think that would broaden McCartney's horizons much.

Then there are the "new shiny objects" in effects, with AutoTune being the most notorious in that class. If any of the Beatles did that, I might have to shoot myself in the head and I'm not even a big Beatles fan really.

But far and away, most of the music technology aims to make the old processes and sounds available at 1% of the cost. For example, I have a software reverb that was literally modeled from recordings and measurements made in the Abbey Road studio. Can't afford to hire an orchestra for $60,000 per session? There are great sample libraries for $2000 one time that, in the hands of a skilled sequencer can fool all but the most expert. Every aspect of the great studios is now available as part of a digital audio workstation. A person can put together something approaching what the legendary studios could do for under $10,000 now. Of course, the real differentiator is the engineers. A poor or inexperienced engineer can make the best studio sound like crap.

I have not seen any statistics, but I wonder what percentage of music streaming on Spotify these days has been produced in a (more or less) home studio. I personally know of some such cases. It would not surprise me if 10% of the streaming volume came from a little digital home studio.

As an example of what you discussed, in the mid 80s, our soundman bought a digital delay. (Eventide) it was 12 bit and he paid a grand.
Four year Four years later, the band added a digital reverb. It was 16 bit and we paid a bit over $800.
Then around 10 years after thar, I bought a digital reverb/delay, (separate modules). I bought 2 actually; one for my keyboard rack, the other for my guitar rack.
24 bit and I paid $900 for both.
4096 times the resolution & 72dB more dynamic range for under half the cost over just about a dozen years.
Another example is that the Minimoog reissue is actually $50 less in 2024 dollars than the original was in 1970 dollars!

A reverb that authentically reproduces the physical echo chambers of the most famous studios or the sound of a church with cement floors and hard walls, or a jazz club full of people, or a famous concert hall, or ... you get the picture .. might cost $50-$200, and cover ALL those cases very convincingly.

The famous studios still have their huge consoles and racks of compressors and whatever, but the gap in fidelity between the most legendary studio hardware and a $49 software plug-in is very narrow now. IMHO, those large consoles and racks are mostly for show, or because the engineers know how to get "their sound" from the hardware and don't want to learn how to accomplish the same thing in the digital realm. But they are retiring or a dying breed.

The one area that really hasn't changed so much is microphones. For the best commercial results, especially with exposed vocals, it is still common to see a microphone costing $2000 or more.

Not $2,000, though. I've got an AKG 414 & a Neumann TLM, but I forgot the model number. I've had both for years.i remember when Gary Loizzo got a vintage Neumann U series (tube preamp and phantom power source)
Was back in the 90s and it was such a big deal it was a featured article in the Illinois Entertainer magazine. He paid over 10 grand, and that was 30 years ago.
I don't record drums, so I don't need great drum mics, though I have a decent set for live. (Don't need tise either. Haven't performed for 17 years.)

one of the legendary Neumann tube mics, just to feast my ears more than anything else. I do mostly live, instrumental recording, with which the microphones are not as critical. And the better condensers (e.g. Rode NT2000, Shure KSM44A) for $600 are not so far from a Neumann for $3000.

Songs, it's an earworm. That hook just stays with you. Some people find that annoying. I don't mind it.

It's a nice simple ditty that doesn't really make good use of Yamaha Analog Synthesizer which is state of the art. Emerson Lake & Palmer were early users.

Using it for such a sweet basic melody is the punchline. Like using a jackhammer to hang a picture. It's a nice picture, but a tack hammer would have sufficed.

But I hear a cute Christmas tune and know nothing about Yamaha Analog synthesizers nor how they relate to jackhammers in a Christmas song.

And if it was "Now And Then," I'm a huge Beatles fan and I have to admit I didn't care for it. Loved "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love," but "Now And Then" didn't make it for me.

The punchline is that he didn't really need a CS-80 Analog Synthesizer for such a delightful yet simple ditty:
Emerson Lake & Palmer were typical users.

Has ruined music. like autotune. A majority of today's artists don't even use real instruments anymore. It's all done by computer.