Rare Recordings from The Beatles to Launch Exclusively on iTunes Next Week

I wish they would release some more of those 1961 Hamburg sessions with Tony Sheridan…..as well as some other Cavern recordings…..but also curious to hear these 1963 bootleg recordings…..

....and they won't need to buy out the iTunes store front-page to bring attention to it.

I guess no 'Carnival of Light'. Not now, anyway...

'If the Beatles chose not to release the recordings before the end of the year, it would mean other record labels could theoretically put them out and profit from them.'

Or the BBC could just chuck them online as a free download without retribution.

TBH I find this greedy. In 50 years they haven't found any of these tracks worthy of being released. Come the 11th hour and they are releasing a massive compilation album in order to extend their stranglehold over the tracks for another 20 years.

The Beatles are old news. They've made their squillions and their families are set for many generations to come (even after spending 90% of their riches on heroin/LSD).

They are no longer performing (and most of the originals are dead). The record label doesn't need to lock down the rights to all music that they never intended to sell.

Good on them for potentially re-mastering it and putting it out there but one must question why they didn't do this years ago, or for free.

Amazed that they're still finding previously unheard or unreleased tracks 50 years later. Either way as a Beatles fan I'm interested to hear what they've found.

Beatles - 50 years old music

What is it with Apple and The Beatles?
I think it had a reason, why the Beatles didn't want to publish this. They made some good songs, but they also released really bad ones - and even in their opinion these bootlegs seemed to be even worse - so what's the fuzz about some 43+ year old records?

djgamble said:

The Beatles are old news. They've made their squillions and their families are set for many generations to come (even after spending 90% of their riches on heroin/LSD).

They are no longer performing (and most of the originals are dead). The record label doesn't need to lock down the rights to all music that they never intended to sell.
.

Click to expand...

Wow, a bunch of dumb statements. Real old news... yet we are still talking about them. Yeah, McCartney spent 90% of his wealth, and still managed to be a billionaire. Unlike many artists... the Beatles are not known for their drug use. They dropped LSD in mid-sixties, smoked pot, Lennon had a heroin addiction for a time, etc. We are not talking about Keith Richards here. Most of the originals are dead? Yeah, try two... half. Not most. I guess most of the originals died of drug overdose as well? Well, it's true, they are no longer performing, since 1969 on a rooftop. Your post is stupid on so many levels.

After five decades, I wonder who The Beatles' market is today. I'm in my thirties and their music never grabbed me like the Jimmy Hendrix Experience, The Doors and The Who did. Personally I can appreciate some of their later, ballsier songs but for the most part they sound too poppy and inoffensive to not sound dated.

Sol said:

After five decades, I wonder who The Beatles' market is today.

Click to expand...

With 30 million record sales in the first decade of the 21st century, either all those old hippies keep buying the same records, or new generations are taking a liking. Question, 40, 50 years after Eminem goes away, will people be buying 30 million copies of his albums? Prolly not. There is something special going on there...

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/12/08/best-selling-albums-of-decade-eminem-beatles/

I suppose that means no 24 minute version of Helter Skelter, either.

ignorant

To the ignorant and for some unknown reason Beatle hater posting here... What difference does it make to you if the Beatles are releasing rare tracks which only will be purchased by die hard Beatles fans? To say such negative things about a pop group that left us with some great music and songs which will stay in our culture for generations is just mean. George died from a brain tumor do you fault him for dying this way? John was murdered by a mentally illl man. Despite John's many years of supporting the Peace Movement he was killed violently. There was a time when young people cared about our country being involved in wars that had no good reason, today young people might be more interested in buying the latest Apple product than the US military being forced to fight wars for corporate America. Paul is alive and still touring and releasing new albums. He works for animal rights and conservation. Do you think Beiber or Swift would ever pick up a cause beyond themselves when they can make commercials selling Coke. I'm not sure why I bother to "learn" you but someone has to say something to balance the lameness posted here.

Revolution

Sol said:

After five decades, I wonder who The Beatles' market is today. I'm in my thirties and their music never grabbed me like the Jimmy Hendrix Experience, The Doors and The Who did. Personally I can appreciate some of their later, ballsier songs but for the most part they sound too poppy and inoffensive to not sound dated.

Click to expand...

When I heard the Beatles for the first time in 1964 I could not believe my ears. Pop music before this time was (MOR) middle of the road stuff like, Pat Boone, Connie Francis, etc.. Safe stuff your parents and grand parents enjoyed. Teens did not have a music that made them want to jump and dance and let loose. Most young people were hooked at that point. The Beatles brought us our own culture back to us with rhythms and lyrics that they were influenced by from such black artists such as Chuck Berry and Little Richard which were considered "race music" at the time, meaning little airplay. Elvis connected to young people the same way coming from the south and being white he played the kind of music that was not allowed on white radio stations and young people got their first taste of R&B and Blues. The Beatles were part of the perfect storm of music and cultural counter revolution. They lived in London and where everything cool was happening. Each album was a evolution as they experimented in a variety of musical form and styles. They had a short trip into eastern spiritualism and drugs like LSD as many artist did at the time. There was never anyone as famous as the Beatles were at their peak in the history of modern music. Hope this explains a little of what it was like growing up during that time and why the Beatles still fascinate so many people. By the way I was 6 the first time I heard first album.

#All you need is love... and copyright renewal strategies...

I like The Beatles, but this feels a bit cynical. Hopefully it will be quite a low price. Nice for dedicated fans to have this stuff available, but that seems like an accidental bonus rather than a well-meant motivation.

That said, the idea of other people being able to profit from their work for no good reason is not great either, so you can't really blame them for the concept of trying to stop that within the broken system that exists.

kerryb said:

When I heard the Beatles for the first time in 1964 I could not believe my ears . . .

Click to expand...

I couldn't either, and I was already primed for it, at the age of 22, by having been hammered by many hours of Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Jimmy Reed and far too much Elvis. I agree with what you say here.

The Beatles were the second rock and roll revolution, followed closely by The Rolling Stones, and they showed that non-Southern white boys could do it too, with class, even. It was the beginning of the counterculture sound track, and it's great that there are still (some) kids who get into it. It all represented the dying off of corporate white-bread culture, still in progress and obviously not finished. As such it's a world cultural treasure, and hats off to Apple for sticking with it. Steve knew the score.

I'm curious whether these are really unreleased session tapes or just the stuff Swingin' Pig Records put out on the semi-legal "Utra Rare Trax" albums in the late 80s and early 90s.

("Semi-legal" because they used a since-closed loophole in EU copyright that allowed them to release the tracks without the rightsholders' consent.)

BillyBobBongo said:

....and they won't need to buy out the iTunes store front-page to bring attention to it.

Click to expand...

That's right. I'm avoiding the iTunes Music store until that nonsense is gone.

People still want the Beatles after all these years. The interest is amazing. Younger people love this band. It's like so much of their music was recorded today. It doesn't sound old. I'm 19 and own all the albums.

djgamble said:

'If the Beatles chose not to release the recordings before the end of the year, it would mean other record labels could theoretically put them out and profit from them.'

Or the BBC could just chuck them online as a free download without retribution.

TBH I find this greedy. In 50 years they haven't found any of these tracks worthy of being released. Come the 11th hour and they are releasing a massive compilation album in order to extend their stranglehold over the tracks for another 20 years.

The Beatles are old news. They've made their squillions and their families are set for many generations to come (even after spending 90% of their riches on heroin/LSD).

They are no longer performing (and most of the originals are dead). The record label doesn't need to lock down the rights to all music that they never intended to sell.

Good on them for potentially re-mastering it and putting it out there but one must question why they didn't do this years ago, or for free.

Click to expand...

Heroin and LSD? It's no wonder you have no freaking idea what you're talking about with the rest of it...this is about as stupid as stupid gets.

Bravo. Well said.

kerryb said:

When I heard the Beatles for the first time in 1964 I could not believe my ears. Pop music before this time was (MOR) middle of the road stuff like, Pat Boone, Connie Francis, etc.. Safe stuff your parents and grand parents enjoyed. Teens did not have a music that made them want to jump and dance and let loose. Most young people were hooked at that point. The Beatles brought us our own culture back to us with rhythms and lyrics that they were influenced by from such black artists such as Chuck Berry and Little Richard which were considered "race music" at the time, meaning little airplay. Elvis connected to young people the same way coming from the south and being white he played the kind of music that was not allowed on white radio stations and young people got their first taste of R&B and Blues. The Beatles were part of the perfect storm of music and cultural counter revolution. They lived in London and where everything cool was happening. Each album was a evolution as they experimented in a variety of musical form and styles. They had a short trip into eastern spiritualism and drugs like LSD as many artist did at the time. There was never anyone as famous as the Beatles were at their peak in the history of modern music. Hope this explains a little of what it was like growing up during that time and why the Beatles still fascinate so many people. By the way I was 6 the first time I heard first album.

Click to expand...

Clearly, those who make the disparaging uneducated remarks don't understand the historic significance of these 4 lads from Liverpool. Making these comments based on whether you personally like the music and not recognizing the historical significance of this band is simply being unable to be objective, and well, stupid !

kerryb said:

To the ignorant and for some unknown reason Beatle hater posting here... What difference does it make to you if the Beatles are releasing rare tracks which only will be purchased by die hard Beatles fans? To say such negative things about a pop group that left us with some great music and songs which will stay in our culture for generations is just mean. George died from a brain tumor do you fault him for dying this way? John was murdered by a mentally illl man. Despite John's many years of supporting the Peace Movement he was killed violently. There was a time when young people cared about our country being involved in wars that had no good reason, today young people might be more interested in buying the latest Apple product than the US military being forced to fight wars for corporate America. Paul is alive and still touring and releasing new albums. He works for animal rights and conservation. Do you think Beiber or Swift would ever pick up a cause beyond themselves when they can make commercials selling Coke. I'm not sure why I bother to "learn" you but someone has to say something to balance the lameness posted here.

Click to expand...

djgamble said:

'If the Beatles chose not to release the recordings before the end of the year, it would mean other record labels could theoretically put them out and profit from them.'

Or the BBC could just chuck them online as a free download without retribution.

TBH I find this greedy. In 50 years they haven't found any of these tracks worthy of being released. Come the 11th hour and they are releasing a massive compilation album in order to extend their stranglehold over the tracks for another 20 years.

The Beatles are old news. They've made their squillions and their families are set for many generations to come (even after spending 90% of their riches on heroin/LSD).

They are no longer performing (and most of the originals are dead). The record label doesn't need to lock down the rights to all music that they never intended to sell.

Good on them for potentially re-mastering it and putting it out there but one must question why they didn't do this years ago, or for free.

Click to expand...

I just love it when people want to "give away" stuff that belongs to someone else.

The best part is watching the contortions they twist themselves into to try to justify their "logic".

Monkeydude said:

What is it with Apple and The Beatles?
I think it had a reason, why the Beatles didn't want to publish this. They made some good songs, but they also released really bad ones - and even in their opinion these bootlegs seemed to be even worse - so what's the fuzz about some 43+ year old records?

Click to expand...

Yes, the home and bootleg recording coming out are very poor quality. But it is interesting for historic reasons. Some people might want to hear how they progressed over time.

What's interesting about such wary work is that is was not "produced" There wa not big lable and producers. It was just four guys and a primitive tape recorder. Compare this to what was done with big budgets and professional engineers at Abbey Road a few years later.

So that is what this album (and other like it) allows, you can hear them before they had the big budget and studio.

kerryb said:

Do you think Beiber or Swift would ever pick up a cause beyond themselves when they can make commercials selling Coke.

Click to expand...

I don't know about Beiber, but Taylor Swift, absolutely she has...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift#Philanthropy

ChrisA said:

Yes, the home and bootleg recording coming out are very poor quality. But it is interesting for historic reasons. Some people might want to hear how they progressed over time.

What's interesting about such wary work is that is was not "produced" There wa not big lable and producers. It was just four guys and a primitive tape recorder. Compare this to what was done with big budgets and professional engineers at Abbey Road a few years later.

So that is what this album (and other like it) allows, you can hear them before they had the big budget and studio.

Click to expand...

Technically, these don't seem to be "bootleg" recordings, by the usual meaning of the word. In the past this has always meant recordings made illicitly. These may be previously unreleased recordings, but they were authorized at the time they were made.