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...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Corps Confirms Beatles Coming To iTunes
- Thread starter Flowbee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
good job man..thats not easy at all....i should know.... and i am the walrus...
Yes!! thats the one!! yeah probably it didnt "inspired" him but rather he took it the way his broken head understood it...Poor retarded fool..we are still here and no such apocalypsis has or will ever come..
Backlashmania???
That's hard to say...
I too went to Backlash's site. I listened to the snippets on the "sounds" page... "Skank Box", "Unsure", and "Death March" but for some reason "Old Crippled" and "Poon" would not play.
I went to "The Band" page and after the website has been open since July 27, 2006, that page is still under construction and only two blog entries, what's up with that? You think if you have a band, you know who was in it and could put their pics and bio up. I went there to see who played what instrument and to see who was on vocals after not hearing any. I don't mind an occasional instrumental song but I like songs with catchy lyrics most. You know, the kind that stick with you. I didn't get that from "Skankbox" or "Unsure". Who do you have that does vocals? Oh wait, the home page says your looking for another vocalist. Six months passed and still no new addition to the band? That can put a kink in your obtaining new shows.
I went to "Theatre" and viewed the amazing Jenn and Amy at the school variety show. Although an enjoyable tune, it would have been more amazing had they memorized the lyrics and gotten rid of that podium holding the song they were reading off.
Not to put down anyone's ability at Backlash, but to answer the question "Backlashmania might not be imminent?", from what I've read, seen and heard, no, at this time, don't think so...
Also, to state that "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.", first, it would cause you not to be Backlash. If your band came out at that time, early 60's, the bands before you, of the 50's would have provided your influence instead of the ones of today and so Backlash's sound would not have been Backlash! Secondly when you stated that your band "probably have given everyone the same mania." You were smart to throw in that word "probably" because early "Beatles" when they were playing at "The Cavern" and doing gigs in Germany before they became widely known and early "Backlash" (your credits being?), I think we all, including yourself, know the answer to that "given everyone the same mania" question.
That's hard to say...
I too went to Backlash's site. I listened to the snippets on the "sounds" page... "Skank Box", "Unsure", and "Death March" but for some reason "Old Crippled" and "Poon" would not play.
I went to "The Band" page and after the website has been open since July 27, 2006, that page is still under construction and only two blog entries, what's up with that? You think if you have a band, you know who was in it and could put their pics and bio up. I went there to see who played what instrument and to see who was on vocals after not hearing any. I don't mind an occasional instrumental song but I like songs with catchy lyrics most. You know, the kind that stick with you. I didn't get that from "Skankbox" or "Unsure". Who do you have that does vocals? Oh wait, the home page says your looking for another vocalist. Six months passed and still no new addition to the band? That can put a kink in your obtaining new shows.
I went to "Theatre" and viewed the amazing Jenn and Amy at the school variety show. Although an enjoyable tune, it would have been more amazing had they memorized the lyrics and gotten rid of that podium holding the song they were reading off.
Not to put down anyone's ability at Backlash, but to answer the question "Backlashmania might not be imminent?", from what I've read, seen and heard, no, at this time, don't think so...
Also, to state that "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.", first, it would cause you not to be Backlash. If your band came out at that time, early 60's, the bands before you, of the 50's would have provided your influence instead of the ones of today and so Backlash's sound would not have been Backlash! Secondly when you stated that your band "probably have given everyone the same mania." You were smart to throw in that word "probably" because early "Beatles" when they were playing at "The Cavern" and doing gigs in Germany before they became widely known and early "Backlash" (your credits being?), I think we all, including yourself, know the answer to that "given everyone the same mania" question.
After reading the comments that came in overnight, the only thing I can say for sure is that I'm gonna check out this Beach Boys album .
Never thought I'd hear myself say that...
...and while I'm being so grossly open-minded, Zadillo, I promise to re-listen to the Beatles records you mentioned in the context of this whole thread. It has been quite a few years. Can't hurt.
.Never thought I'd hear myself say that...
...and while I'm being so grossly open-minded, Zadillo, I promise to re-listen to the Beatles records you mentioned in the context of this whole thread. It has been quite a few years. Can't hurt.
Well, that's the point. Everyone is telling here how Beatles has influenced music that came after them. And they are right. But just about all music is influenced by the music that came before them. Why should we draw the line at Beatles, and just proclaim "Without Beatles, Rock would not be where it is today"? Well, without Chuck Berry, Louis Jordan, Elvis, Boogie-woogie etc. etc. there might not be Beatles.
Modern Rock traces it roots to Rock 'n Roll, which in turn traces it's roots to Rhythm 'n Blues, which in turn can trace it's roots to the chants of the black slaves. And just about ALL music in the west in influenced by the likes of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven.
Yes, Beatles influenced bands that came after them. And those bands have influenced bands that came after them. But Beatles is not the point of origin. They are not the beginning. They are "just" another link in the chain. There were bands that influenced Beatles, and there are bands that were influenced by The Beatles.
Mind Blown To Pieces
I just finished listening to "In My Life" from the Beatles and I am truly shattered. Tears flowed. Then I smiled. This is a great thing. Does anyone really know why Apple is great? Think about it. I'm done.
I just finished listening to "In My Life" from the Beatles and I am truly shattered. Tears flowed. Then I smiled. This is a great thing. Does anyone really know why Apple is great? Think about it. I'm done.
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!
The Beatles Make Me Sick
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.
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 Ones???
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
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
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.
So much hate towards the Beatles....as for anyone saying they have more talent the the Beatles, and there just not in the right place, it in a better place. Its called the internetmit makes singing, becoming famous 10x as easy as it was for the Beatles. But I'm sure you'll disagree...but one thing you can't disagree with is the Beatles are more popular and well know, and we both have theorys on why that is
As for the Beatles on iTunes, good news, it you don't like them I can't see how thats "bad' they will be on iTunes, just don't buy there stuff
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.
As for the Beatles on iTunes, good news, it you don't like them I can't see how thats "bad' they will be on iTunes, just don't buy there stuff
their time is way over...open space for new talents..
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.
When I read that I said to myself "God what an arrogant and ignorant comment" but to be fair to you I tought I'd visit your bands site to see if there was any basis to the comment. I'm sorry but someone who is a member of at best a mediocre band has no right to call the Beatles a mediocre band. If you dont like 'em fine, you're entitled to your opinion I spose but at least dont be so arrogant about things. Open your eyes, or your ears I should say, and dont knock a fantastic band when you aren't great yourselves.
There's so many things wrong with your post that I'm at a loss thinking of where to begin, but I think it really boils down to this: The Beatles aren't particularly greedy, being notoriously stingy about licensing their music commercially to this day, never attempting a comeback when they had a chance, releasing a tasteful amount of retrospectives (unlike, say, Elvis Presley or The Rolling Stones), keeping the quality control of their brand high, etc. Most of The Beatles stuff you see kicking around (both CDs and otherwise) is unlicensed and not making a dime for McCartney, Lennon and company.
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...
But what matters most to ME, anyway, is this: even if The Beatles were the absolute biggest, greediest jerks on the planet, who cares? I'm not sitting down to dinner with Sir Paul every night of the week, I'm listening to songs he wrote. And the songs he and his band-mates wrote are wonderful. If my music collection consisted of artists who I thought fought the good fight and were great people to hang out with, I'd have maybe 2 CDs. Heck, if I applied this to everyday life, I'd probably never watch any movies (we know how greedy actors can be), probably not go out to eat (the restaurants have a lot of guts to charge me a 300% markup on the food they buy wholesale, afterall) and don't even get me started on the sports world, employer of the greediest people on Earth. The point is, I don't care to know what my favorite musicians, actors, authors, chefs, athletes, painters, etc are like in real like because it doesn't make a different with how I connect with them and enjoy their talents.
What you call absurd litigation is really standard business. Apple Computer took its name with a certain understanding behind it. If you really want to look for senseless litigation, Google around a bit. I think Apple Corp's case against Apple Computer, Inc isn't even in the top 10,000 ridiculous cases (did you see the guy trying to sue Disney over the Mickey Mouse trademark the other day?).
I just don't get so many people feeling so strongly about a band they supposedly don't care for...
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.
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 conversation
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.
Because NO business works this way.
One thing that's important is to realize there is a distinction between the Beatles as a band and Apple Corps as a company. Apple Corps is a company they set up, but they also put businesspeople in charge of it (who frankly were known to also make some bad decisions, etc.).
Apple Corps wasn't set up as some hippy free love company that wasn't going to defend itself.
Corporations by their very nature are "greedy". As it is, I don't think the original deal made between Apple Computer and Apple Corps had anything to do with greed (all they asked in that original deal was that Apple Computer didn't do anything that could cause confusion with Apple Corps). It's only when Apple violated those terms later that it came down to it.
Either way, the main point here is that a distinction has to be made between Apple Corps as a company and the Beatles as a band. They have distinct goals, interests, etc. The members of the band itself probably didn't care all that much about it, but the corporation absolutely does. And remember, Apple Corps was more than just the Beatles; it was an actual label that did represent other artists as well (i.e. Billy Preston, Badfinger, etc.).
-Zadillo
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.
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. After all, someone might think the Beatles are actually slaving away designing musical instruments these days 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?
There is a difference between defending your intellectual property and simply gouging. Apple Corps is gouging. Just because you think Lennon et al walk on water doesn't mean we shouldn't question the legitimacy of this kind of litigation.
Let's look at your examples, shall we? Is Apple suing PODs, the Portable-On-Demand storage company? Not that I know of. Why not? Because who the heck is going to think that Apple, Inc. is suddenly selling storage units? And, if Apple were to sue them, I'd call them out for being greedy, lame bastards too.
iPod Lounge, as someone else pointed out, is a different matter. There is real potential for confusion there, not imagined, greedy, dollars-signs in the eyes potential like Apple Corps. Blackberry and Blackjack. Don't you think it's reasonable to believe the two might be confused? After all, they are both smart phones.
Yes, there are millions of lawsuits like this every day and it's sick. People would rather sue than work, rather sue than innovate, rather sue than take responsibility for anything. That's our culture today and it is sickening. I have no problem with a company defending a legitimate trademark where there is true potential for confusion. But the Apple Corps litigation is nothing but greed. Stop defending it.
Pods (the storage company) does not do anything with music. After last weeks settlement, Apple Inc. can and will be totally in the music business. It is really what they have wanted ince iTunes and the iPod came out...and that;s fine. They would never have settled if they tought that they could win. When Apple Corps. lost to Apple Computers, it was becasue iTunes was more or less separate and they were not a records company, although were on the edge of becoming one. Now they are free to include music in iPods if they feel like it, which I am sure they will.
I can't even open any kind of fast food business with an Mc in front of a name EVEN if it was McApple. McDonalds has that stronghold which is FAR worse than Apple Corp had with music. Apple Computer could have picked any other fruit name (or otherwise) in the beginning, but the didn't.
Also you as a consumer may not know about Apple Corp as a music company but everybody in the music business does. If next week both Apples released albums, you'd have to check and see which one was which.
I can't even open any kind of fast food business with an Mc in front of a name EVEN if it was McApple. McDonalds has that stronghold which is FAR worse than Apple Corp had with music. Apple Computer could have picked any other fruit name (or otherwise) in the beginning, but the didn't.
Also you as a consumer may not know about Apple Corp as a music company but everybody in the music business does. If next week both Apples released albums, you'd have to check and see which one was which.
Apple, Inc. happens to run the largest online music business.
I'll bet the "greedy" folks at Apple, Inc. would sue first.
Spoken like somebody who's never created anything worth trademarking or copyrighting.
