Apple Corps Confirms Beatles Coming To iTunes

[Zadillo]

Also, just so it doesn't sound like I'm saying the Beatles were the only influential band of this time period, I figured I'd offer up this quote from Paul McCartney about the Beach Boys album "Pet Sounds":

It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much. I've just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life ... I figure no one is educated musically 'til they've heard that album ... I love the orchestra, the arrangements ... it may be going overboard to say it's the classic of the century ... but to me, it certainly is a total, classic record that is unbeatable in many ways ... I've often played Pet Sounds and cried. I played it to John [Lennon] so much that it would be difficult for him to escape the influence ... it was the record of the time. The thing that really made me sit up and take notice was the bass lines ... and also, putting melodies in the bass line. That I think was probably the big influence that set me thinking when we recorded Pepper, it set me off on a period I had then for a couple of years of nearly always writing quite melodic bass lines. "God Only Knows" is a big favourite of mine ... very emotional, always a bit of a choker for me, that one. On "You Still Believe In Me", I love that melody - that kills me ... that's my favourite, I think ... it's so beautiful right at the end ... comes surging back in these multi-colored harmonies ... sends shivers up my spine.

Take a look at the DVD releases if you have the cash, because they've been remastered in 5.1. Horn and string parts have been brought way up, with some occasional "swirling around the room" effects, and I've noticed they managed to liven up acoustic guitar sounds in a lot of places (fret noises in particular, which I seem to love almost as much as the sound of woodwind pads and reeds). Oh, and the bass clarinets too, it's almost worth it just for those.

And we've got to stop responding to each other; people will think we're internet fanboy lovers.

Are those DVD Audio releases? I'll at least look into that, although I don't have a DVD Audio player.

 

[KingofAwesome]

Are those DVD Audio releases? I'll at least look into that, although I don't have a DVD Audio player.

Just pop it into your DVD player, it plays as if it were a movie with the display just showing the track name. And it's $20 at Amazon, well worth it for the 5.1.

 

[Zadillo]

Just pop it into your DVD player, it plays as if it were a movie with the display just showing the track name. And it's $20 at Amazon, well worth it for the 5.1.

Cool, I'll check it out, although I'll need to get a 5.1 audio system to hook my DVD player up to (or actually a PS3 now).

Is this just one release, or have they done all of the Beatles albums in DVD Audio? I know I saw that Love was available as a DVD Audio disc, but didn't know about the others.

 

[donlphi]

New people are born every day, and people frequently begin to listen to music that they didn't listen to before. I'm still buying more Charles Mingus music (although I almost have the entire collection now). Old music still gets repackaged in new formats, otherwise people wouldn't have Beatles music on 8-tracks, cassettes, or CDs.

Granted, it's very easy to get digital files from CDs, so those who became Beatles fans after CDs were prevalent most likely only have the music on CD, and those people will be fine. But that only covers fans who had the expendable income and adopted the CD format between the early 90s and a few years ago (with digital distribution cutting into the market more and more). Considering the current population, that leaves out a very large portion of the market, leaving lots of room for new sales in a new format.

And this all ignores the fact that their album Love was just recently released. How do you know there won't be another new album next year?

First of all, half of the Beatles are Dead... They won't be coming out with a "NEW" album any sooner than 2-Pac. LOVE isn't a new album, it's a remix. I don't think it's a deal breaker or maker for PMP consumers. They want inovative devices to play their current music on. Apple has done that with the iPOD.

Does anybody have a good LP to 8-Track converter?

 

[frogger2020]

**** the beatles
they were in the right place at the right time
over rated and over hyped.

why are they even in the news here? why not write about every artist that is or isnt on itunes?

Ha Ha! I love it! If the Beatles got an exclusive iTunes deal, then you would love them. Since they didn't, they are the devil!

 

[paddy]

Does anyone actually buy Beatles crap any more? Perhaps he can explain why.

I can explain it: because it's not crap.

 

[dkoralek]

Cool, I'll check it out, although I'll need to get a 5.1 audio system to hook my DVD player up to (or actually a PS3 now).

Is this just one release, or have they done all of the Beatles albums in DVD Audio? I know I saw that Love was available as a DVD Audio disc, but didn't know about the others.

Now if you want a really good 5.1 album mix, check out the SACD version of Dark Side of the Moon... although, i don't think that the PS3 will play SACDs in 5.1 because they don't have six channel output (i.e. I believe that all the surround decoding must be done by the player and not the amp or receiver).

cheers.

 

[KingofAwesome]

First of all, half of the Beatles are Dead... They won't be coming out with a "NEW" album any sooner than 2-Pac. LOVE isn't a new album, it's a remix. I don't think it's a deal breaker or maker for PMP consumers. They want inovative devices to play their current music on. Apple has done that with the iPOD.

Does anybody have a good LP to 8-Track converter?

The original tracks weren't re-recorded, but it is indeed a new album. Recording is only a part of the process involved in making an album. Otherwise, Protools wouldn't exist. Ask any musician who has put out an album - the actual time (and money) spent in the studio playing the songs only make up a small part of any professionally produced album.

 

[bigjohn]

MJ own the rights to the music and lyrics.

Apple Corp own the rights to the recordings.

Thanks to all for clarification on the rights-holders.

It should be noted that I do support The Beatles and while appearing on iTunes would be nice, I won't buy those tracks because I can't support DRM-ed music & the quality is lousy (I can hear the difference in my car...).

This is sorta funny btw: http://www.applecorps.com/

 

[nemaslov]

The original tracks weren't re-recorded, but it is indeed a new album. Recording is only a part of the process involved in making an album. Otherwise, Protools wouldn't exist. Ask any musician who has put out an album - the actual time (and money) spent in the studio playing the songs only make up a small part of any professionally produced album.

ALTHOUGH IT IS GREAT AND THEY WILL SELL BIG.. I cannot wait for the remastered CDs. The LOVE Cd/DVD 5.1 although not perfect, is so friggen incredible in 5.1 surround and I for one cannot wait for their remastered albums. They invneted modern recording techniques that are still used and copied today and the new batch of CDs will kick ass over those released in 1986. Even the rematered downleads will sound better than those and bill be huge sellers.

The LOVE albums is crisp clean and amazing.

 

[shikimo]

Many many stupid Beatles songs? What is your basis for that exactly? Even if we're just talking about their #1 singles, I'd be hard pressed to identify more than a handful of them as "stupid". What does that even mean? At most I can point to their early hit singles like "She Loves You" and "From Me to You" and "Love Me Do", which although not "stupid", were certainly much more simplistic boy/girl love songs when compared to their later work. But even those I don't think I would describe as "stupid".

Looking at most of their hit songs, I think they were hits a) because they were the Beatles, so they inherently did get more attention because the band became so popular and b) because they were genuinely good songs. Even the more simplistic songs they did later (from a content perspective) like Paperback Writer and Hello Goodbye were still pretty complex musically.

Of course, looking at just the hit songs ignores some of the importance of their albums as a whole, especially looking at Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, the White Album (as much as this album had problems brought about by the tensions within the band at this point, it still has some real gems in it), Let it Be and Abbey Road.

Anyway, "lots and lots of people, including musicians, find the Beatles to be largely inartistic, tired and often uncreative"? Really? Lots of them? What do you find inartistic, tired and uncreative in Rubber Soul, or Sgt. Pepper's, or Abbey Road, or Revolver? What do those lots of people find in those albums that justifies that?

OK, I'm busted for calling it 'stupid,' sorry; that's just my opinion and not a constructive contribution. But I'm sticking with 'inartistic, tired and uncreative' to describe a long string of #1 teenage-girl-scream songs. Not useful to get into a song-by-song account, but you know the ones I mean. And in my original post I clearly admitted that there are any number of great Beatles songs...my main point was to agree with those who argue that astronomic record sales and attachment to a full-on social/economic movement tend to over-emphasize the extent of the Beatles influence on music, at the expense of other artists who were just as or more important.

Meh, don't take it personally. It's kids hating everything that came before them. When I was growing up I hated the old music my parents listened to...now my kids hate the music I listen to. It's the same thing over and over. Just like the guy said a few posts back "some fuddy duddy old band that no one cares about". It's like he has to say that. It's hardwired into their brains...they can't help it.

Just ignore them. They'll see when they grow up and their kids crap all over the things that they like. It's an endless circle bound to repeat over and over. In the grand scheme of things, it's all pointless anyway.

Not true...and how could you know all of our ages anyway? I've been a musician for 20 years and have had a taste of music from many eras, in many countries, since recording technology has existed. Just cuz someone doesn't like the same bands as you doesn't make them an ignorant kid, ay?

Also, just so it doesn't sound like I'm saying the Beatles were the only influential band of this time period, I figured I'd offer up this quote from Paul McCartney about the Beach Boys album "Pet Sounds":

Now that's interesting, and really surprises me. I tend to dismiss the Beach Boys in discussions like this, but it's true I don't know much past the radio hits.

 

[phillipjfry]

All this hostility....
why can't we just all love NIN and go back to Leopard rumors

Figure it, something from FoxNews would cause so much hostility amongst so many people from around the world, on one forum. It's mass chaos!

 

[Flowbee]

People are allowed to have differing opinions you know!!

Obviously. It's just ironic that many of the musicians you're using to make your case against the Beatles were themselves inspired or influenced by the Beatles.

 

[bartelby]

Obviously. It's just ironic that many of the musicians you're using to make your case against the Beatles were themselves inspired or influenced by the Beatles.

Just because band X is influenced by band Y doesn't mean bands influenced by band X are also influenced by band Y.
I don't think it flows like that. That's all I'm trying to say!

 

[ChrisA]

**** the beatles
they were in the right place at the right time
over rated and over hyped.

If you are old enough to remember, there were MANY bands in the place and time. They were not "hyped" Advertizing then was not like today. Word about the beatles spread mostly "underground" by word of mouth. I remember getting a phone call saying "You HAVE to watch the Ed Sullivan Show tonight. He's having a great new band on..."

IT was a crowded field. But now in 2007 with time as a filter we only remember a few British rock/pop bands from the 60's most have faded into the past...

Some of their work sounds dated today but you have to remember the sound was absolutely new and different from anything else at the time. They were pushing the envelope of recorded music. (Other were pushing too but in different directions)

Much like classical composers. We remember Beethoven But he had literally hundreds of contemporaries. Many rich people patronized composers and musicians, why do we remember only so few of them?

OK I am a fan. I don't listen much any more because I've hear everything they've recorded and they ain't going to make any more.

I don't know if the music will sell on the Internet. Many people already have the CDs

 

[Flowbee]

Oh, are we dropping names now? Ask Billy to join the forum. I'll see if Chuck Leavell can stop by, too.

Since his name was brought up by another poster, I thought I would add some first-hand knowledge to this thread. Feel free to do the same.

 

[OllyW]

Also, just so it doesn't sound like I'm saying the Beatles were the only influential band of this time period, I figured I'd offer up this quote from Paul McCartney about the Beach Boys album "Pet Sounds":

At that time, it seemed all the top bands were egging each other on to push the boundaries. I listened to the John Lennon / Rolling Stone interview podcasts last week and he commented on how The Beatles and The Stones would respond to each other's new singles.

Pet Sounds was Brian Wilson's response to Rubber Soul and Sgt. Pepper was The Beatles answer to Pet Sounds.

Brian Wilson
I heard Rubber Soul one night in my house here in L.A., and I was so blown out that I said, "I have to record an album as good or better than Rubber Soul. If I ever do anything in my life, I'm going to make that good an album." And so we did.

 

[Rot'nApple]

I agree with backsidetail....

If the Beatles started today they'd get nowhere. They just happen to be in the right time. All their stuff is very dated sounding.
Name a band that's changed music and hugely influenced other bands?
I feel Black Sabbath had more of an impact on music than The Beatles.

As for more modern music:
Nine Inch Nails
Nirvana
Grand Master Flash
Run DMC
Metallica
Iron Maiden

Christ if it wasn't for Eddie Van Halen (or Billy Sheehan, depending on your view) the guitar solo wouldn't be what it is today.

"If the Beatles started today they'd get nowhere.", I guess would have to apply to any band thinking of forming today and hereafter. So, if your band is not going to go anywhere, why bother forming a band to make music, write songs and spead a little happiness to the world?

Someone call Don McLean, so THIS is the day the music died?!

 

[KingofAwesome]

Since his name was brought up by another poster, I thought I would add some first-hand knowledge to this thread. Feel free to do the same.

It certainly didn't sound that way to me, it sounded more like trying to add more weight to your own opinions because you were channeling the opinion of someone famous. And saying "I know X, he would disagree with that" is not first-hand knowledge; at best, it's speculation of someone else's opinon. And frankly, with the level of anonymity here, nobody should believe that you know his opinion of this thread (nor should they believe I know anyone's opinions but my own) without any sort of citation.

 

[Zadillo]

OK, I'm busted for calling it 'stupid,' sorry; that's just my opinion and not a constructive contribution. But I'm sticking with 'inartistic, tired and uncreative' to describe a long string of #1 teenage-girl-scream songs. Not useful to get into a song-by-song account, but you know the ones I mean. And in my original post I clearly admitted that there are any number of great Beatles songs...my main point was to agree with those who argue that astronomic record sales and attachment to a full-on social/economic movement tend to over-emphasize the extent of the Beatles influence on music, at the expense of other artists who were just as or more important.

Now that's interesting, and really surprises me. I tend to dismiss the Beach Boys in discussions like this, but it's true I don't know much past the radio hits.

Again, I could certainly agree to some extent about the characterization of the really early Beatles stuff (and in fact, I actually rarely listen to the first few Beatles albums). Although I will say that, given the constraints of the genre, songs like "Please Please Me" and "Love Me Do" and so forth at least played around a bit with the basic song structures, and lyrically at least they had some interesting twists.

But in the grand scheme of things, the Beatles pretty quickly moved from those relatively uninteresting songs to the more interesting stuff. And frankly, even the "Please Please Me" album had some genuinely interesting songs like "I Saw Her Standing There". But thinking about it, it was only a year between that album and "A Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles for Sale", which did start to feature more interesting songs (perhaps if not lyrically, at least musically). And only a year after that brought Help!, and then Rubber Soul, which really was where they started really branching out. I still think that's one of the remarkable things about the Beatles, how far they did evolve their own style in such a short amount of time. The difference between "Rubber Soul" and "Please Please Me", and then "Revolver" a year later, is pretty remarkable.

Regarding the Beach Boys, it's probably worth noting that in many ways, "Pet Sounds" (which is often cited as one of the greatest albums, and often ends up #1 or #2 on "greatest albums of all time" lists) is probably more appropriately seen as a Brian Wilson album....... it definitely has Brian Wilson all over it. Even if you don't generally care for the Beach Boys, I'd highly recommend checking it out. I'd also recommend Brian Wilson's recently released album "Smile" (something he had been working on as his follow up to Pet Sounds for the Beach Boys, in response to Sgt Pepper, before his nervous breakdown). Given all of the problems Brian Wilson has had, I think he did a great job of finally pulling that album together.

When Sgt. Pepper was released, it sort of led to the invention of ROCK CRITICISM as an art form. This is a fact. As I love that album, I still feel that Revolver is their best and was leaps and bounds ahead of any recording artist at the time. Before the Beatles, artists would records a few singles and the rest of the album's songs were usually mediocre filler. The Beatles WERE the first band to create each album as a complete artwork.

A very good and important point. This is also from Brian Wilson's comments about "Rubber Soul" (and it's influence on him in doing "Pet Sounds"):

I really wasn't quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs ... that somehow went together like no album ever made before, and I was very impressed. I said, "That's it. I really am challenged to do a great album."

 

[Unspeaked]

I can't believe so many so-called music fans are playing down the importance of The Beatles.

I'm not the biggest Beatles fan in the world, but I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to their influence, impact and musical significance.

What they did in a recording studio alone is probably enough to justify them as the most important band of the past 50 years. The amazing things they were able to create on 4-tracks put the multi-track sessions of today to shame, and there's techniques that George Martin innovated that STILL haven't been replicated by today's artists.

As far as the music itself goes, almost any of the music that's recorded today can be directly or indirectly traced back to the band's post-Revolver work track by track. This is a band whose individual SONGS went on to form entire GENRES of music.

Further, no band I can think of has been able to release albums full of such diversity that are still coherent. Any given Beatles album from 1965 onward had four, five, six even seven or eight different styles of music, all beautifully packaged to fit into the album format. They were masters of the 3 minute single, but even more so masters of the LP.

Then there's their album artwork (they brought Pop Art to the masses with Peter Blake's Sgt. Pepper album sleeve, and released one of the must stunningly minimal album covers ever in an era of excess with The White Album), their films (which themselves could be argued as seminal), their style, etc, etc, etc.

If a recording artist today doesn't site them as a major influence, I guarantee you most of the artists they DO site were Beatles fans.

To say that the Beatles today wouldn't have the same impact because they were "at the right place at the right time" completely ignores the fact that the musical landscape would be an entirely different world without them.

Elvis, The Rolling Stones, Buddy Holly, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin - they all had great bodies of work, but the level of evolution in The Beatles catalogue is just amazing... each release totally blew away the last and came out of left field to an unexpected audience.

Never again will such a talented, ground-breaking band garner as much mass appeal as The Beatles were able to with their genre defining work.

End of story.

 

[Zadillo]

At that time, it seemed all the top bands were egging each other on to push the boundaries. I listened to the John Lennon / Rolling Stone interview podcasts last week and he commented on how The Beatles and The Stones would respond to each other's new singles.

Pet Sounds was Brian Wilson's response to Rubber Soul and Sgt. Pepper was The Beatles answer to Pet Sounds.

Yeah, indeed, it's definitely a pretty amazing time period (and it is sort of interesting seeing what talents like Wilson and the Beatles were doing to try and top each other.

To add to your point, "Smile" was supposed to be the counter-response to Sgt. Pepper, but unfortunately Brian Wilson went through his nervous breakdown and never completed it.

I am really glad that he finally did finish and release it. The band he teamed up with, the Wondermints, were a really great choice (as they are known for having a sort of Beach Boys-like sound).

 

[dkoralek]

Again, I could certainly agree to some extent about the characterization of the really early Beatles stuff (and in fact, I actually rarely listen to the first few Beatles albums). Although I will say that, given the constraints of the genre, songs like "Please Please Me" and "Love Me Do" and so forth at least played around a bit with the basic song structures, and lyrically at least they had some interesting twists.

But in the grand scheme of things, the Beatles pretty quickly moved from those relatively uninteresting songs to the more interesting stuff. And frankly, even the "Please Please Me" album had some genuinely interesting songs like "I Saw Her Standing There". But thinking about it, it was only a year between that album and "A Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles for Sale", which did start to feature more interesting songs (perhaps if not lyrically, at least musically). And only a year after that brought Help!, and then Rubber Soul, which really was where they started really branching out. I still think that's one of the remarkable things about the Beatles, how far they did evolve their own style in such a short amount of time. The difference between "Rubber Soul" and "Please Please Me", and then "Revolver" a year later, is pretty remarkable.

Regarding the Beach Boys, it's probably worth noting that in many ways, "Pet Sounds" (which is often cited as one of the greatest albums, and often ends up #1 or #2 on "greatest albums of all time" lists) is probably more appropriately seen as a Brian Wilson album....... it definitely has Brian Wilson all over it. Even if you don't generally care for the Beach Boys, I'd highly recommend checking it out. I'd also recommend Brian Wilson's recently released album "Smile" (something he had been working on as his follow up to Pet Sounds for the Beach Boys, in response to Sgt Pepper, before his nervous breakdown). Given all of the problems Brian Wilson has had, I think he did a great job of finally pulling that album together.

Friends of mine who have never heard pet sounds look at me strangely when i suggest that they listen to it. But almost every single one of them comes back telling me how amazed they are by the album.

I find the Beatles middle period with Help!, Rubber Soul, and Sgt. Peppers to be my favorite (I find Help! to be somewhat underrated).

cheers.

Just because band X is influenced by band Y doesn't mean bands influenced by band X are also influenced by band Y.
I don't think it flows like that. That's all I'm trying to say!

I respectively disagree. If band x influences band y to build upon x's music, and then band z further refines that sound, band z would not have developed that sound without the influence of band x. that's not to say that it is impossible, but highly unlikely.

Just because record sales do not necessarilly imply artistic greatness, doesn't mean that a great artist can't sell lots of records (this is vaguely like affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy stating that because they sold a lot means they can't be great artists).

cheers.

 

[nemaslov]

Someone here mentioned Nirvana (whom I love too) and wrote that the Beatles don't matter. Well one more they influeneced:

Dave Grohl from Nirvana and the Foo Fighters First Album:
Beatles - Red and Blue albums
"The first albums I bought were those Beatles greatest hits compilations, one was red, one was blue. 'Paperback Writer' was one of my favourites, it had that nasty groove to it. I always thought it was great they could look like such gentlemen and sound like such bad assess. I really thought that was great."

 

[Zadillo]

Friends of mine who have never heard pet sounds look at me strangely when i suggest that they listen to it. But almost every single one of them comes back telling me how amazed they are by the album.

I find the Beatles middle period with Help!, Rubber Soul, and Sgt. Peppers to be my favorite (I find Help! to be somewhat underrated).

cheers.

Yeah, I think I agree with that. As much as I do like Abbey Road as an album, as a whole I would definitely take that same middle period too (including Revolver).

I agree about Help! too; some really beautiful songs on that album.