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

I think the iTunes store is a great place to shop for compressed music. I admit I prefer uncompressed and only buy one offs for fun. Then again, I also tend to take my CD collection and convert to lossless Apple and Flac as well as download from HDtracks hi def music (24/96 etc.).

Maybe Apple should start thinking about selling CD quality or better tracks and yes, with both a home system and good ear phones, you can certainly hear the difference.

This is starting to look more and more relevant.

My interest in rare, unreleased recordings of the Beatles post 1964 = Off the charts
My interest in rare, unreleased recordings of the Beatles 1964 and earlier - ZERO.

Rare tracks from an average (at best) band to be released on iTunes.
Not really a news story. But the band was rather popular in it's day. So I am sure some people would be interested in it.

(And yes for the record I know the Beatles were an average at best band that was really popular. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to look into this.)

The Beatles had exactly zero influence on the Stones... funny thing, if you listen to post-Beatles interviews with John Lennon, on many occasions he lists how The Beatles would so something, then 6 months later the Stones would catch up. As I mentioned earlier, Jagger can be seen in dozens of photos with The Beatles throughout their career. The guy was a spy, I tell you!



----------

the8thark said:

(And yes for the record I know the Beatles were an average at best band that was really popular. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to look into this.)

Click to expand...

Average at best? Must have been over-achievers... If that's average, I wonder what uber-ultra-unbelievable will get you?

furi0usbee said:

Average at best? Must have been over-achievers... If that's average, I wonder what uber-ultra-unbelievable will get you?

Click to expand...

They were just very popular. Kind of like Justin Bieber today. The Beatles had their fans and lots of them. And some of the techniques used to make their music was innovative at the time. But lyrically they were terrible. So overall they were just what the crowds wanted at the time and became famous. And they were really well marketed.

There were lots of good bands and singers at the time. Some of them I like some I don't, but that's cool as this has nothing to do with my own personal taste. I can say an artist I personally do not like is good (if in fact they are indeed good).

I know most people don't agree with me. But apart from the name and hype the band had nothing going for it, that would make have really good songs that would be memorable throught the ages. People remember their music for the hype and the times.

Hey jude , na na na na
or
We all live on a yellow brick road, yellow brick road yellow brick road
or
Let it be, let it be, let it be, oh let it be, whisper words of wisdom, let it be

Any ol chump can repeat the same words over and over in a song. It takes real talent to write songs with real meaning that people can relate to.

furi0usbee said:

Nirvana ushered in a new paradigm with their sound. You had MJ, boy bands, hair bands and that 1988-1991 period was just horrible. Then Nirvana burst onto the scene, and it changed overnight. Cobain melded many sounds, from guess who, The Beatles, punk, new wave, etc. The rumblings in the North West had potential, and Nirvana simply was the most successful of those acts, and were able to put the pieces together. To say they were just popular doesn't do the band justice. They were game changers. Sadly, they only had a few years to accomplish it all. I would have loved to see Nirvana and/or Cobain grow.

I would reword that quote. I'd say Nirvana redefined music in the 90s just as much as The Beatles did in the 60s. Only The Beatles had much more time with much more talent in that era.

Click to expand...

One major fault with comparing Nirvana to the Beatles ... Nirvana was one of hundreds of bands before them with that sound. Not so, with the Beatles. Nirvana seemed new to the masses because the masses had been ignoring alternative rock for 20 years prior. I would argue that The Smiths actually had a larger impact on music than Nirvana, but neither had anywhere near the impact of the Beatles.

jtrauscht said:

One major fault with comparing Nirvana to the Beatles ... Nirvana was one of hundreds of bands before them with that sound. Not so, with the Beatles. Nirvana seemed new to the masses because the masses had been ignoring alternative rock for 20 years prior.

Click to expand...

The Beatles were exactly the same in that regard. They get a lot of credit for things they didn't originate but rather were first to bring to a widespread audience--the same way Nirvana is often erroneously given credit for having pioneered grunge.

For example, The Beatles are often wrongly given credit for being pioneers of the psychedelic movements, but that had been going on in the underground scenes in both the US and UK for many, many years before The Beatles showed any signs of going that direction. The Beatles simply caught wind of it and got on board.

furi0usbee said:

1967, The Summer of Love. Who kicked that off on June 1 with Sgt. Pepper? The Beatles didn't follow, the led by example.

Click to expand...

So you're claiming that the Beatles, singlehandedly, developed and led the world into the "Summer of Love" and the psychedelic movement? Just all on their own?

furi0usbee said:

I'll end it with a "put your money where your mouth is" statement. Their certified record sales are over 250 million. Claimed sales, or unofficial sales are 600 million. For reference, Pink Floyd, about 114m certified sales.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon#Charts:
"The Dark Side of the Moon was an immediate success, topping the Billboard Top LPs & Tapes chart for one week. It subsequently remained in the charts for 741 weeks from 1973 to 1988."

I really don't think it's worth your time to get into a back and forth over record sales and popularity. Pink Floyd aren't exactly slouches and have pulled off some feats that the Beatles never could have imagined.

furi0usbee said:

No matter how you look at it, by sales, influence, or whatever, no other artist(s) in the history of the world were more successful. They didn't do it with smoke and mirrors, just good music.

Click to expand...

I never said they didn't make good music. I'm saying they are wildly overrated and weren't nearly as important as many people of the 60s generation make them out to be. From my perspective, as a kid growing up in the 80s, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Pink Floyd, Hendrix... those musicians were a lot more relevant to me and music in general than the Fab Four boy band thing the Beatles were doing.

IJ Reilly said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe "bootlegs" back when these were made were often "garage" recordings by the artists. IE, not authorized by the studio for release, even if they were made in the same room. Today's use of the word is different.

----------

Sol said:

Yes, at the time they would have seemed like a big part of a cultural revolution but today it seems to me like The Beatles are the inoffensive nostalgic pop from those days.

Click to expand...

You keep saying this. So...music should be offensive?

Viewing music from multiple generations ago with today's attitude will never work well. Perhaps people should learn about more generations on their own merit.

Mozart's dad didn't want him screwing around with 'that modern crap', either.

----------

the8thark said:

Hey jude , na na na na
or
We all live on a yellow brick road, yellow brick road yellow brick road
or
Let it be, let it be, let it be, oh let it be, whisper words of wisdom, let it be

Any ol chump can repeat the same words over and over in a song. It takes real talent to write songs with real meaning that people can relate to.

Click to expand...

Absolutely idiotic. Hey Jude is a song written to console a young boy, specifically Julian Lennon. What about that song is unrelatable to real life? Pretty clear you know nothing about the Beatles and therefore we will take your words with the amount of weight they deserve.

Since most of the audience for this are "old", I am surprised the vultures have waited so long to try and milk this. Especially since they probably could cobble together "bootleg" recordings from 1964 to 1969 and release those too (instead of trickling them out at Xmas for the next few years). Certainly the Let It Be sessions have massive amounts of video/audio material.

djgamble said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bad math it is 70 years from release so doing it this way they get a total of 120 years on them. Then of course when Mickey comes up for expiry in a few more years there will be yet another retroactive extension to copyright so the parasites can scam even more from us...

So...these rare recordings (all of which had been bootlegged before) were out on iTunes in non-US stores....for literally SEVERAL MINUTES before they were taken down, as well as any publicity around them. All evidence that they ever existed = gone. And many U.S. fans are doubtful that this collection will even touch the U.S. store.

The lucky few who got them say that the sound quality is a major upgrade from the best-sounding bootlegs that ever had the material.

As of 9:15 am EST, this album is already available in the US iTunes store.

djgamble said:

I totally see it.

Click to expand...

Nice job taking stuff out of context. They didn't spend "90% of their riches on heroin/LSD", which was your original contention; was it not?

----------

the8thark said:

We all live on a yellow brick road, yellow brick road yellow brick road

Click to expand...

Contrary to what you may believe, John Lennon, not Elton John, was the Beatle.

Sol said:

Yes, at the time they would have seemed like a big part of a cultural revolution but today it seems to me like The Beatles are the inoffensive nostalgic pop from those days. Nostalgia by baby boomers familiar with the context of the band's work can only go so far and The Beatles brand is slowly turning retro and kitsch for the generations that are far removed from it. For sure, The Beatles left their mark in pop culture and rock music but personally, I always felt like it was status quo to love the Beatles while artists like The Doors and Jimmy Hendrix just grabbed me by the throat the first time I heard them.

Click to expand...

The Beatles preceded The Doors and Hendrix. The Beatles became hugely popular in 1963; Hendrix's debut album was in 1967. Hendrix felt a deep debt to the Beatles and he opened his London show promoting his first album with "Sgt. Pepper." The Doors' first album was also in 1967. The Beatles were the pioneers of a pop/rock revolution that paved the way for Hendrix, The Doors, and others. I understand that your tastes are more attuned to the later groups, but history can only be understood in the order in which it unfolded.

If you really think they were inoffensive, your familiarity with the group's discography is limited. I suggest a listen to The White Album. This is a group that was continuously experimenting and reinventing their sound. I won't say they were always 100% original, but they created a beautiful product which legitimized much of what they picked up from their own influences. Sort of like Apple, which is why Steve Jobs revered them.

MacUser2525 said:

Bad math it is 70 years from release so doing it this way they get a total of 120 years on them. Then of course when Mickey comes up for expiry in a few more years there will be yet another retroactive extension to copyright so the parasites can scam even more from us...

Click to expand...

50 Years then another 20 years (making it 70 years) if they choose to publish.

50 + 20 = 70
*deep American accent* geeeewd maaaaayth

They're just tossing everything they never intended to publish onto a worthless album which all the fools will lap up.

----------

ollyw said:

the album is still up on the uk itunes store.

View attachment 452109

Click to expand...

lol!!

I've read some opinions elsewhere that shed a different light on the situation. It is not the Beatles doing this, it is their record company. Just like Bob Dylan didn't release some old tracks, but his record companies.

And the reason: If the record companies has recordings that it doesn't release for 50 years, then the copyright of the recording reverts back to the artists. So this manoeuvre makes sure that copyright stays with the record company and not the artist for another twenty years.

dumastudetto said:

The Beatles are the most overrated band in the history of the music industry. Give me Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Nirvana or Taylor Swift over them every day of the week.

Click to expand...

Give me none of those Well maybe a few of those songs. Yeah the Beatles have really cheap-quality music for the most part. Repeated chords and nonsense singing – yaaaaawn.

----------

the8thark said:

They were just very popular. Kind of like Justin Bieber today. The Beatles had their fans and lots of them. And some of the techniques used to make their music was innovative at the time. But lyrically they were terrible. So overall they were just what the crowds wanted at the time and became famous. And they were really well marketed.

Click to expand...

So glad that I can hear something else here besides "What are you saying?! The Beatles aren't good?! **** you." Sadly, their songs are less creative than what comes out of countries in the Middle East with no freedom of expression.

This move is strictly a strategic business move by a money grubbing record label. They probably have another 20 bootleg songs that they will release in 10 years. It's called a business plan, every label surely has them attached to their classic all stars.

OllyW said:

The album is still up on the UK iTunes Store

Click to expand...

Yeah, what happened was it was released to most of the rest of the world on December 16, but it wasn't up for long; in some countries it was taken down after about an hour, in others minutes, in a few others, literally seconds. At the time the thought was that they put it up just long enough for it to count towards the copyright extension law.

December 17, the US release date, happened, and...nothing when it turned midnight in EST, then CST...some folks said usually things don't show up on iTunes until about 3am. Well, 3am happened across the entire continental US, and....nothing.

Then all of a sudden....about 8:30am CST: *poof!* There it was. And it's been up since. And I think it reappeared everywhere else too. I don't think an official explanation was offered, but a common belief is that on 12/16, when it was first released elsewhere, there were some problems - the pricing was off, the album wasn't findable if you searched under "Beatles," etc. But on 12/17 all was fine.

I downloaded it, and I gotta say....it was a LOT more exciting than I expected! The studio outtakes sound even better than on the old Yellow Dog bootlegs, which I didn't think was possible (especially on music files compressed with a lossy format). The BBC stuff doesn't sound so pristine, but still very enjoyable. At $40 the collection was a bit pricy, but for the same amount of music we would have paid about $25 per CD on the black market back the '90s, so this was about $10 cheaper...plus, I found an iTunes redemption code online for 20% off, so I saved money that way...