Beatles on iTunes in 2008

[MacRumors]

More talk of Beatles coming to iTunes in 2008:

Sir Paul McCartney is to release the Beatles back catalogue online - helping pay for his multi-million-pound divorce from Heather Mills.

The singles and albums will be made available on iTunes in the coming months following the final divorce hearing, due to take place at the High Court in 10 days.

Article Link

[stevehp]

This actually makes sense this time...

Beatles stuff is finally allowed on American Idol starting next week.

[Peace]

The only problem with this is Sir Paul doesn't have exclusive rights. The music may very well show up on iTunes but it won't be because of Paul's divorce.

[tgildred]

And all it took was a messy divorce.

[job]

Do the Beatles even matter anymore?

Most of the people who saw them live are aging and the younger generations don't seem to care that much about them.

[cheeseadiddle]

Oh, I think iTunes would sell a ****load of Beatles stuff. What baffles me is it's taken this long for the people who have the rights to it to realize this...

[thunderclap]

Originally Posted by job

Do the Beatles even matter anymore?

Yes... much like Pink Floyd's Live 8 performance was a top seller.

[nep61]

Originally Posted by job

Do the Beatles even matter anymore?

Most of the people who saw them live are aging and the younger generations don't seem to care that much about them.

I'm one of those "aging" people... Yeah, the Beatles DO matter.
1. Today's Music, and everything since the Beatles, would probably be a whole lot different than it is today if it weren't for the Beatles & even Elvis for that matter.
IMO, Every kid that picks up a guitar and gets together with friends to play & make music aspire to be what the Beatles were at one time.

2. Steve J. & Steve W. would have possibly called their little startup company something other than APPLE all those years ago if it weren't for the Beatles... so again, yeah I think they matter. IMHO

[edesignuk]

Helping pay for his divorce? What a load of crap, the man is reportedly worth £825m, he doesn't need help to pay her off. Even if she does manage to get £50m. This reasoning is nonsense.

Anyway, good to see it's finally on its way.

[TheSpecialist]

About time!

[flashframe]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

More talk of Beatles coming to iTunes in 2008:

Article Link

Sir McCartney only owns the recorded masters, not the copyrights. Those are owned by Sony/ATV (remember that is owned by Michael Jackson and Sony - actually the ATV part, under which the Beatles Catalog falls, is wholly owned by Jackson and leased every 10 years to Sony).

Jackson is an Apple fan and uses Mac personally, however.

[jaydub]

Originally Posted by job

Do the Beatles even matter anymore?

Most of the people who saw them live are aging and the younger generations don't seem to care that much about them.

They absolutely do. I think people definitely still remember the Beatles contribution. I think the fact that there is a cirque du soleil show here based on the Beatles music reminds even young people of what their impact was.

[flashframe]

Originally Posted by jaydub

They absolutely do. I think people definitely still remember the Beatles contribution. I think the fact that there is a cirque du soleil show here based on the Beatles music reminds even young people of what their impact was.

I'd go so far as to say that you can't listen to a pop song today without hearing a Beatles influence. Ever buy a cd from an artist who said it was a concept album? The Beatles did it first. Ever see a music video? Beatles did it first. Ever listen to music that had multi-layered vocals? Beatles. They're influence is very much woven into the fabric of popular music today. So, they're very relevant. I'm not necessarily a Beatles fan, but even I can see their influence in today's music.

[zombitronic]

Originally Posted by job

Do the Beatles even matter anymore?

Most of the people who saw them live are aging and the younger generations don't seem to care that much about them.

I'm in my 20s and I love the Beatles. And the Stones, and the Pistols, and lots of music that was created before my time. I'm sure I'm not the only open-minded youth who's open to a variety of music.

Also, about the delay, I've come to understand that pre-divorce settlement Paul would have to worry about some of the profits of this deal going to his ex, and he'd rather not have that.

[esaleris]

I hope they didn't remaster it. It's a bunch of bullcrap when dynamic compression rendered by "modern" remastering techniques kill all clarity in the music.

[tk421]

Originally Posted by job

Do the Beatles even matter anymore?

Most of the people who saw them live are aging and the younger generations don't seem to care that much about them.

Yes.

As a member of the younger generations (I'm 26) I can say that the Beatles are one of my favorite bands. I currently have 388 Beatles tracks in my iTunes library, which is more than any other artist. If the Beatles re-released their albums digitally remastered, I would repurchase everything (though I would probably repurchase on CD and not download).

I have lots of friends that also like the Beatles. The youngest of my close friends is a 19-year-old whose favorite bands are the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.

Anyway, in November 2006, the Beatles released an album that did quite well.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by flashframe

Sir McCartney only owns the recorded masters, not the copyrights. Those are owned by Sony/ATV (remember that is owned by Michael Jackson and Sony - actually the ATV part, under which the Beatles Catalog falls, is wholly owned by Jackson and leased every 10 years to Sony).

Jackson is an Apple fan and uses Mac personally, however.

Actually, Jackson only has rights to recordings prior to 1964, and he is slowly selling those back to Sony and Apple Corp. to pay off his debt. More than likely, Apple Corp. will end up getting the rest of the right this year (from Jackson and Sony) and start digital conversions. If they were to package the Beatles, like they did U2 a few years ago, I'd buy the entire catalog.

TEG

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by esaleris

I hope they didn't remaster it. It's a bunch of bullcrap when dynamic compression rendered by "modern" remastering techniques kill all clarity in the music.

Funny how the recent Beatles remasters for the Circus soundtrack were released to universal acclaim. Production techniques for radio/MP3 one-hit wonders are not the same is this... the Bowie remasters are a good case in point; obviously superior to the initial CD releases.

[tk421]

Originally Posted by esaleris

I hope they didn't remaster it. It's a bunch of bullcrap when dynamic compression rendered by "modern" remastering techniques kill all clarity in the music.

Not all remastering uses heavy dynamic compression. I think the Beatles music was transferred to CD relatively poorly when it was done in the 80's. If it was redone with skill, the recordings would gain clarity.

Edit: As Blue Velvet said, I thought Love sounded really good.

[Doctor Q]

Yoko Ono is often blamed for the Beatles breakup, George Harrison's ex-wife Pattie Boyd gets credit for inspiring the song Layla, and now Heather Mills will get the credit for Beatles music finally moving into the online distribution model!

[pounce]

sure the beatles still matter.

i can tell you we won't be having this discussion about "good charlotte" or most of the current crop of pop music in thirty or forty years.

[jettredmont]

Originally Posted by nep61

I'm one of those "aging" people... Yeah, the Beatles DO matter.
1. Today's Music, and everything since the Beatles, would probably be a whole lot different than it is today if it weren't for the Beatles & even Elvis for that matter.
IMO, Every kid that picks up a guitar and gets together with friends to play & make music aspire to be what the Beatles were at one time.

2. Steve J. & Steve W. would have possibly called their little startup company something other than APPLE all those years ago if it weren't for the Beatles... so again, yeah I think they matter. IMHO

Will you be re-buying your Beatles catalogue on iTunes?

Personally, I didn't "live through" the Beatles, but I do enjoy much of their music. However, in the past year or so I've ripped every one of their CDs to my iTunes manually, at 320kbps. I can't see spending more money to buy the same songs a third time (first time was on tape/LP for me, which in itself was a "rebuy" of my Dad's collection on 8-track and LP).

IMHO, this would have been HUGE two years ago, and really big one year ago. They'll make a lot out of it this or next year, but the best it can hope for is "big" on the order of a top-selling contemporary artist. They pissed away their chance.

[jaydub]

Speaking of remastering, the Beatles Love CD is outstanding IMO. It's remastered and mixed differently, it's now one of my favorites.

[Genghis Khan]

the Love album is awesome....superbly remixed

Originally Posted by MacRumors

Sir Paul McCartney is to release the Beatles back catalogue online - helping pay for his multi-million-pound divorce from Heather Mills.

now, from memory...Heather Mills got 125mill pounds, and Sir Paul is worth 2.5bill pounds

he doesn't need the iTunes music store


sounds like a rumor started by ignorant wishful people

[davinche]

I wonder how many threads there have been over the years that said the Beatles would be comming to iTunes. Until I can actually click Buy I won't believe it.