wake me when there is something interesting on page 1![]()
good job man..thats not easy at all....i should know.... and i am the walrus...
wake me when there is something interesting on page 1![]()
Are you saying Backlashmania might not be imminent?
Actually you could draw a lot of parallels between the influence of composers like Mozart and Beethoven on subsequent composers, and the more recent influence of Lennon/McCartney as composers (not to mention George Harrison's influence).
I went to Backsidetailsli's web site and can say one thing - sounds like poorly played, barely intelligible, silly named ska/punk/emo chaos. Sorry to be blunt, but this is the problem with most of the Beatles complaints and "haters". To call the Beatles mediocre and then hear this just continues to ruin my day. Maybe more knowledgeable people's opinions should register higher than the misinformed and questionably talented types. I think Backsidetaisli needs the Beatles more than he/she thinks... I am truly sorry for even engaging in this debate now that I know I was up against such "lightweights". IM P.S. I like the comments about how today with myspace, youtube, and other "shameless" self-promoting outlets a record deal is STILL elusive. Right on the money! Now get to writing some solid songs!
ah, I remember the days when I was in high school (that was about....eight years ago) and I was in a band and we thought we were the best and that we were hot ****, although we weren't dumb enough to think we'd start Beatlemania again.....looking back, the stuff we played was really really awful....
ah, to be young, naive and stupid again!
I never got The Beatles. Missed them by about two decades. Even though I'm rather indifferent to their music, I'm pretty disgusted with them and Apple Corps. What a bunch of GREEDY...wait, did I say GREEDY???...people.
This whole Apple vs. Apple thing is utterly absurd. Just because they used the word Apple first and put out some records, they can sue away every time Apple (the computer company) does anything even remotely related to music. I don't need a lesson in law. I appreciate why they can do this. But why DO they do it? Don't they have enough money? How the heck is anyone going to confuse anything Apple does with them? Most people have no clue that their label is even called Apple Corps. Oh wait a sec...that cool new iPod from Apple...but which Apple? The Beatles record label from four decades ago? Or that computer company? Hmmm...I wonder... Like that would ever happen.
It truly makes me sick to see this kind of greed. I always found the band members to be unlikeable and unsympathetic people. Even now with McCartney's lame divorce drama, trying to sell himself as the poor beleaguered husband. What a crock. Of course I have no idea who's really behind the lawsuits, nor do I much care. I don't really care what Apple agreed to and how much it cost them. I just think it's pathetic that it cost them anything at all. The Beatles make me sick.
Which members of the Beatles do you find "unlikeable and unsympathetic?"
If you missed them by two decades you probably need to make up for lost time, my friend. Don't merge "most people" with yourself and some mysterious others. Situations like this can confuse the confusable... You should have "ALL" the ideas about who's really behind the lawsuits. Don't persecute a great, beloved group because you are too lazy to do a couple of google searches! Think about what you are saying. Steve Jobs would probably ignore you if you started blathering on about how you love apple computer and such. Do you know why??? Because when he was stoned on acid and dreaming of future computers (and Breakout) , a lilting, gentle, beautiful Beatles song was blowing through the Jasmine in his mind... Grow Up (what I mean is age about 20 years soonly so we can deal with you more easily) Thanks. IM
their time is way over...open space for new talents..![]()
if my band came out at that time, instead of the beatles, we would probably have given everyone the same mania. they did not do anything special at all. its because of them being a mediocre band that people havent heard before that made them famous and all influential.
Spare me your idol worship.
Ask a hundred people, a thousand people, heck, a million, and I'd bet not a single one would somehow confuse Apple Computer and their products with anything related to the Beatles.
Like I said, I missed The Beatles by 20 years. While I certainly appreciate and respect their undeniable influence on music and popular culture, I don't really care for their music. I don't love it. I don't hate. Indifference. Just as I'm sure you might feel the same way about bands I admire. But that's not what we're talking about. Grow up yourself and read my post again. I wasn't criticizing their art.
What I was criticizing is their greed. I think The Beatles and their company are a bunch of greedy bastards. Period. And I think it's pathetic to even try to defend them. Love their art, fine. But how do you defend this absurd litigation? What is the possible motive other than greed? Trademark protection? Bull.
I love Apple, Inc., but I don't think Steve Jobs is a terribly nice guy. At least, nothing I've ever read or heard has made me believe otherwise. This isn't about defending my idols or anything so childish. It's about saying, why the heck do The Beatles & Co., who are already rich beyond their wildest dreams (some of whom weren't even in the band, but managed to hook themselves to the gravy train), even bring about such absurd lawsuits?
Why is a company like Apple, Inc. punished financially for having a similar name, despite the fact that no one is ever going to confuse the two? It's not like Apple Corps is even an active label releasing new music, marketing new talent, running ad campaigns that might somehow be confused with Apple, Inc. ads. Apple Corps is a company that manages the music of a band that hasn't recorded anything new in, what, nearly 40 years.
And, as for who I find unsympathetic, well, honestly, Lennon and McCartney. Lennon comes off as smug and pompous to me. And McCartney, well, I've never bought his sugar-coated exterior.
I never got The Beatles. Missed them by about two decades. Even though I'm rather indifferent to their music, I'm pretty disgusted with them and Apple Corps. What a bunch of GREEDY...wait, did I say GREEDY???...people.
This whole Apple vs. Apple thing is utterly absurd. Just because they used the word Apple first and put out some records, they can sue away every time Apple (the computer company) does anything even remotely related to music. I don't need a lesson in law. I appreciate why they can do this. But why DO they do it? Don't they have enough money? How the heck is anyone going to confuse anything Apple does with them? Most people have no clue that their label is even called Apple Corps. Oh wait a sec...that cool new iPod from Apple...but which Apple? The Beatles record label from four decades ago? Or that computer company? Hmmm...I wonder... Like that would ever happen.
It truly makes me sick to see this kind of greed. I always found the band members to be unlikeable and unsympathetic people. Even now with McCartney's lame divorce drama, trying to sell himself as the poor beleaguered husband. What a crock. Of course I have no idea who's really behind the lawsuits, nor do I much care. I don't really care what Apple agreed to and how much it cost them. I just think it's pathetic that it cost them anything at all. The Beatles make me sick.
Yes, yes, you are no doubt right as far as facts are concerned, but if every conversation was concerned solely with facts there would be very little conversationThat was not greed but business. Apple Inc protects itself and sues when their trademark is violated (think that iPod Lounge is now iLounge and on and on). It has been written about countless times...when Apple computer FIRST started, they approaced Apple Corp and Apple Corp allowed Apple Computer to use the name as long as they stayed away from music. This final settlement last week now allows Apple Inc to do ANYTHING music related. It is that simple...Any business no matter what you think, is obligated (to their shareholders) to protect their brand and business.
That was not greed but business. Apple Inc protects itself and sues when their trademark is violated (think that iPod Lounge is now iLounge and on and on). It has been written about countless times...when Apple computer FIRST started, they approaced Apple Corp and Apple Corp allowed Apple Computer to use the name as long as they stayed away from music. This final settlement last week now allows Apple Inc to do ANYTHING music related. It is that simple...Any business no matter what you think, is obligated (to their shareholders) to protect their brand and business.
Like I said in an earlier post, I understand why Apple Corps can sue. I frankly just don't understand why they do. I'm well aware of the stupid deal Apple, Inc. signed ages ago with Apple Corps. I get the whole b.s. argument about trademark protection. I just don't buy it. No one is going to confuse a shiney new iPod with the Beatles's record label. And why sue? Why not say: Apple, Inc., instead of gouging you for cash, we're going to let you use the Apple name? After all, you're a computer company releasing new products and we're a company that does nothing but manage the music of a decades-old band. There's no chance anyone will confuse us. Don't the Beatles & Co. have enough money? Obviously not. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
Comparing iPod Lounge to Apple vs. Apple is, well, comparing apples and oranges. The iPod is a current product, so it's very likely that someone who sees iPod Lounge might believe that it is somehow related to, or even owned by, Apple, Inc. On the other hand, no one is going to somehow confuse Apple, Inc. products with Apple Corps, the records label. The latter exists solely to manage the Beatles' music. They aren't marketing new products or doing anything that might somehow be confused with Apple, Inc. Furthermore, serious Beatles fans aside, who even knows that the Beatles' label/company is called Apple Corps?
If Apple, Inc. was starting their own record label, perhaps then I'd find the argument a bit easier to swallow. But, like I said before, no one is going to somehow confuse an Apple, Inc. product with the Beatles. It's absurd.
Like I said in an earlier post, I understand why Apple Corps can sue. I frankly just don't understand why they do. I'm well aware of the stupid deal Apple, Inc. signed ages ago with Apple Corps. I get the whole b.s. argument about trademark protection. I just don't buy it. No one is going to confuse a shiney new iPod with the Beatles's record label. And why sue? Why not say: Apple, Inc., instead of gouging you for cash, we're going to let you use the Apple name? After all, you're a computer company releasing new products and we're a company that does nothing but manage the music of a decades-old band. There's no chance anyone will confuse us. Don't the Beatles & Co. have enough money? Obviously not. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
Comparing iPod Lounge to Apple vs. Apple is, well, comparing apples and oranges. The iPod is a current product, so it's very likely that someone who sees iPod Lounge might believe that it is somehow related to, or even owned by, Apple, Inc. On the other hand, no one is going to somehow confuse Apple, Inc. products with Apple Corps, the records label. The latter exists solely to manage the Beatles' music. They aren't marketing new products or doing anything that might somehow be confused with Apple, Inc. Furthermore, serious Beatles fans aside, who even knows that the Beatles' label/company is called Apple Corps?
If Apple, Inc. was starting their own record label, perhaps then I'd find the argument a bit easier to swallow. But, like I said before, no one is going to somehow confuse an Apple, Inc. product with the Beatles. It's absurd.
If any business does not defend their company in these cases and allows even ONE other compnay to florish and use their name in any form, they can lose their right to go after future violators. It sets a precedent. And even though many people to see or know of Apple Corp. on a day to day basis, they still regularly release music under that name. Just this past year along they released LOVE, and remastered CDs of Concert for Bangla Desh, Harrison's Material World album, Lennon's Rock n Roll Album, the Capitol Box Volume 2 and several other releases. Granted not alot but the LOVE release was one of the top ten sellers of 2006. Unfortunately you have to sue sometimes to get parties to the table to hope for a settlement.
If the corporate entity that is Apple Records chooses to go after a company that they allowed to carry their name in good will, it's no different than Apple protecting its ridiculous "pod" trademark, Cisco going after "iPhone," Blackberry attacking Samsung's "BlackJack" or any other of the MILLIONS of lawsuits that happen in the business world on a daily basis. You're saying your surprised that a company is trying to make money? What a shock! Here I was thinking we were living in a communist state, where no one strives to be ahead of anyone else. I'm sure you live on the poverty line and donate all your spare cash to charity, right? After paying for your Mac, of course...
And how exactly is anyone is going to confuse any of this with Apple, Inc. products???
I get the idea of defending a trademark. However, they are a record label. Apple, Inc. is an electronics company.
If someone started making guitars and called themselves Apple Guitars, let me guess, the greedy Apple Corps folks would sue them too.
Why does anyone even defend this kind of crap? I'd have no argument if we were talking about Apple, Inc. starting a label. But we're not. We're talking about an electronics company and a record label. Apple Corps is gouging because they can, not because they should, not because anyone is going to confuse the two, but because they are a bunch of greedy bastards. When are people going to stop defending this sort of thing and actually call out greedy people like this for what they are?
Spoken like somebody who's never created anything worth trademarking or copyrighting.
I've yet to hear a band the half the talent of the Beatles. Thats not to say there are not good bads but I can't find one that almost every song they write is amazing.