McCartney: No Beatles on iTunes anytime soon

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Tunes
Link: McCartney: No Beatles on iTunes anytime soon (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20081125094415)
Description:: The on-going, multi-year drama of when, not if the Beatles catalog will appear on iTunes will continue into the foreseeable future...

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[sascha h-k]

who cares ?!

[Tenebrous]

I agree. The Beatles are boring and irrelevant.

[Gravity]

who cares? Exactly. They shouldn't be greedy with an aging catalog that appeals to an increasingly diminishing audience over time. Their entire catalog is at least 40 years old now. The Beatles are Oldies but Goodies, and getting older....

Greed on the record company's part is going to hit them with increasingly diminishing returns.

[zombitronic]

who cares ?!

If you don't, why'd you even come here to check out the article?

I agree. The Beatles are boring and irrelevant.

And so is your comment.

A lot of people care. Ask Steve Jobs. Despite your opinions, there are a lot of potential sales, here. The Beatles catalog has be guarded securely for quite some time, now. Officially releasing their catalog in digital form would be quite a big deal.

[TitoC]

Yeah, really - come on.

Any catalog over 40 years old isn't worth much (Chopin, Mozart, Charles Mingus, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, etc.,).

. . . .</sarcasm>

Gimme a break! When you find a rock group more popular and more influential than the Beatles, let me know.

[ChrisA]

Yeah, really - come on.

Any catalog over 40 years old isn't worth much (Chopin, Mozart, Charles Mingus, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, etc.,).

. . . .</sarcasm>

Gimme a break! When you find a rock group more popular and more influential than the Beatles, let me know.

Yes I understand that half the people who post here is less then 18 years old and think anything music release 9 years ago was "in a differnet era".

My son is 17 and his reaction to the new Guns n' Roses album was "Isn't GNR an oldies band? Yes it is I guess their last record is as old as he is.

[Kardashian]

Like everything - The Beatles have a market, even today.

But as time goes by, this market will become smaller and smaller.

Sure, you've got your die hard Beatles fans - but they will already own all the Beatles material.

Sure, they'd sell material on iTunes because it might be better quality for their iPods, or to save ripping all the CD's/Records - but I don't think sales would be through the roof.

How many more compilation albums can they release? There is no new material coming from the Beatles. This is it.

You might have grown up with them and get all nostalgic when you hear their songs but the fact is, in this day and age, not many people care if they're on iTunes or not. So what if Steve Jobs cares about them. iTunes won't collapse because it doesn't have the Beatles.

I, or a majority of the public, probably couldn't care less. They're only harming themselves. If McCartney wants to earn back some money from his divorce, he could do it in a jiffy, and stop being such a stick in the mud, trying to keep the Beatles 'sacred'.

Its pathetic.

[jayducharme]

The Beatles are Oldies but Goodies, and getting older....

Even so, they're still after all these years extremely popular among specific demographics. Chuck Berry still has an audience. Bessie Smith still has an audience. There's money to be made. But the Beatles' catalogue has been in a legal mess for decades, and I'm sure that's what's holding the deal up. They're probably all fighting with EMI about royalty payments. Paul is sort of the poster child for record company ruthlessness. Even though he wrote the most-covered song in history ("Yesterday") he got no royalties from it. The Beatles sold their lives to Capitol records and they've been battling them (and Michael Jackson and now EMI) in court ever since.

That said, I'm not chomping at the bit for the Beatles catalogue on iTunes. Probably like many others, I've already taken my CD collection and dumped it into iTunes on my Mac. Plus, I have a Beatles station on Pandora. So why would I bother spending extra cash for "legit" iTunes downloads? IMO, iTunes works best with obscure bands or more recent offerings of older groups.

[Kardashian]

I agree. The Beatles are boring and irrelevant.

Boring = Personal taste. It's not for me, but then again I'm 19.

Irrelevant = Yes.

[Kardashian]

Even so, they're still after all these years extremely popular among specific demographics.
Exactly. But that demographic is not the young 'hip' iPod flashing youngsters (like myself). It's the older generation who prefer CD's or records, or the older generation who have already imported their CD's to iTunes.

That said, I'm not chomping at the bit for the Beatles catalogue on iTunes. Probably like many others, I've already taken my CD collection and dumped it into iTunes on my Mac. Plus, I have a Beatles station on Pandora. So why would I bother spending extra cash for "legit" iTunes downloads? IMO, iTunes works best with obscure bands or more recent offerings of older groups.
Totally agree. The small cluster of iTunes-using Beatles fans will already have their CD's imported onto their Macs or PC's.

[IJ Reilly]

The Beatles may not be (as John Lennon said so many years ago) "bigger than God," but McCartney apparently thinks they're still bigger than iTunes. But then, Sir Paul has always had something of a fat head.

[Blue Velvet]

I wouldn't blame it all on Paul McCartney. Apparently, EMI has to get an agreement and permission from Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison as well.

[zombitronic]

Like everything - The Beatles have a market, even today.

But as time goes by, this market will become smaller and smaller.

Sure, you've got your die hard Beatles fans - but they will already own all the Beatles material.

Sure, they'd sell material on iTunes because it might be better quality for their iPods, or to save ripping all the CD's/Records - but I don't think sales would be through the roof.

How many more compilation albums can they release? There is no new material coming from the Beatles. This is it.

You might have grown up with them and get all nostalgic when you hear their songs but the fact is, in this day and age, not many people care if they're on iTunes or not. So what if Steve Jobs cares about them. iTunes won't collapse because it doesn't have the Beatles.

I, or a majority of the public, probably couldn't care less. They're only harming themselves. If McCartney wants to earn back some money from his divorce, he could do it in a jiffy, and stop being such a stick in the mud, trying to keep the Beatles 'sacred'.

Its pathetic.

You didn't read the article, did you? McCartney wants it done. It's EMI that's being a stick in the mud.

Here's another article (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccartney-wants-beatles-itunes-deal-come/story.aspx?guid={B53F4C6E-F9BB-4C9E-B174-922E7E90E103}&siteid=breitbart).

Quote: "I really hope it will happen because I think it should."

There actually is some unreleased Beatles music. I'm not sure if this would be part of the iTunes deal, but if it is, this would also be a huge deal.

I did not grow up with the Beatles. I'm 27 years old. The fact is, their music had a hell of a lot more influence on modern music today that many of you give them credit for. I can't stand most of this whiny excrement that that labels have been spewing out today. Most of these guys well be forgotten in less than a decade. The Beatles, on the other hand, will likely be the Beethovens and Mozarts of our time.

[Peace]

After that famous lawsuit didn't Apple,Inc. obtain rights and in turn license the term "Apple" to Apple Corps ?. Seems to me all Apple,Inc. would have to do is revoke the license deal if they wanted the music so bad.

It's all of them.

And they are all being equally greedy.

[Gasu E.]

I agree. The Beatles are boring and irrelevant.

My 19 year old son is a professional musician, an aspiring singer-songwriter; and The Beatles are a tremendous influence on him and other songwriters of his generation. Many of their songs are timeless and suitable for re-interpretation, like any classic music. Within their time they were extremely innovative, which anyone with developed taste and a sense of history can appreciate. Whether they are "boring" is a matter of personal taste, but their influence on current music makers makes them anything but irrelevant.

[IJ Reilly]

I wouldn't blame it all on Paul McCartney. Apparently, EMI has to get an agreement and permission from Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison as well.

Well that's true, but I've gotten the impression in the past that Paul has been the main holdout. He may blame the impasse on EMI, but you can be sure that the label is representing the interests of the Beatles in their dealings with Apple. It's also pretty evident that EMI, on behalf of the Beatles, are seeking a special deal from Apple.

[Kilamite]

My understanding was that Paul was keen for Beatles to be on iTunes..but it was EMI being fussy.

[Blue Velvet]

For all we know, even though EMI are being cast as the obstructionists by the McCartney camp, maybe EMI and Apple want to release them as purchasable on a song by song basis, and those representing The Beatles want only album sales.

Because if they release the blue and red The Beatles sets and No.1 with all the no.1 hits, then album sales will suffer.

I'm just guessing here, mind. I don't take anything that Paul McCartney says at face value.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm just guessing here, mind. I don't take anything that Paul McCartney says at face value.

Likewise. The fact that we never seem to hear from the other three corners of the Beatles empire on this issue, is telling.

[tk421]

Likewise. The fact that we never seem to hear from the other three corners of the Beatles empire on this issue, is telling.

And just what exactly does that tell you?

[IJ Reilly]

And just what exactly does that tell you?

The fact that none of the other Beatles or their widows are speaking publicly about problems making a deal with Apple suggests to me that they don't have any. I have the impression from the history of this matter that McCartney is the one holding out for more dough. Maybe he's figured out a way to take it with him.

[Drumjim85]

Well that's true, but I've gotten the impression in the past that Paul has been the main holdout. He may blame the impasse on EMI, but you can be sure that the label is representing the interests of the Beatles in their dealings with Apple. It's also pretty evident that EMI, on behalf of the Beatles, are seeking a special deal from Apple.

since when did the beatles starting owning their music ... they have no control over what EMI does with it.

[tk421]

The fact that none of the other Beatles or their widows are speaking publicly about problems making a deal with Apple suggests to me that they don't have any. I have the impression from the history of this matter that McCartney is the one holding out for more dough. Maybe he's figured out a way to take it with him.

McCartney is also the most likely to get asked about it. Two of the four are represented by their families, and Ringo is not as prominent a member of the band.

We also all know that record labels like to be greedy as well.

[IJ Reilly]

since when did the beatles starting owning their music ... they have no control over what EMI does with it.

I very much doubt that this is true.

McCartney is also the most likely to get asked about it. Two of the four are represented by their families, and Ringo is not as prominent a member of the band.

We also all know that record labels like to be greedy as well.

Everybody is "greedy," but some are more so than others.

As I said, I only suspect that he's the holdout based on what I've heard, and the consistently conspicuous absence of any comments from anyone else associated with the band.

[Quillz]

This probably has nothing to do with anything, but doesn't Michael Jackson actually "own" the entire Beatles discography? I was under the impression that he earned all the royalty payments, as he bought the catalog in the 1980s, much to the dismay of Paul McCartney, his former friend.

[Drumjim85]

This probably has nothing to do with anything, but doesn't Michael Jackson actually "own" the entire Beatles discography? I was under the impression that he earned all the royalty payments, as he bought the catalog in the 1980s, much to the dismay of Paul McCartney, his former friend.

he used to, until Bank of America took it from him (around 2004). And it was actually Paul's advice to Jackson to buy catalogs ... he just didn't know he's go for his.

[QuarterSwede]

For all we know it could have to do with DRM. EMI probably wants it and McCartney may not. Or it could be the other way around. Who knows.

[IJ Reilly]

For all we know it could have to do with DRM. EMI probably wants it and McCartney may not. Or it could be the other way around. Who knows.

Wasn't EMI the first label to go with iTunes+? They certainly offer music in DRM-free format on iTunes now.

[jodelli]

Exactly. But that demographic is not the young 'hip' iPod flashing youngsters (like myself).

If you call yourself 'hip', you're not. Labels like that are bestowed by others.