Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Beatles Exclusively on iTunes?

MikeAtari said:
Geez, this is a MONEY LOSER if there ever was one.
I loved the beatles when I was 6.
But, these days who's going to be buying these tracks!!!

Steve must love the Beatles, because this is a gift.
And will hardly be a profitable venture.

---
Yes, the stereo effect on the early albums is hard on headphones.
The drums ONLY in the Right ear.
The Guitars ONLY in the Left...
Click to expand...

My nieces and nephews, ages 15-20, love the Beatles, Stones, Floyd, Zeppelin, Who, etc. They listen to their own genre too, of course. Beatles music is timeless. It is rather amazing when one considers the album "Meet The Beatles" is well over 40 years old.
 
gugy said:
Granted, for new fans might be a good thing. I wonder how many new fans the Beatles have nowadays? Plus, their parents might have the songs already on cd or lp. and of course you can always go to your local cd store and buy their music.
Sorry, I don't think adding the Beatles is a big deal at all.
The only thing it might be interesting is to buy their whole complete catalog of songs just like Apple did with U2 Complete for a good price.
Click to expand...

...and the exclusive Dylan songs with the whole catalogue oniTunes? Yes in theory we have had these songs for along time but for some reason, people love to download to their itunes from the web. You can always buy most of these CDs cheaper, even used.
 
Leoff said:
Strange. I could have sworn I'd heard the Rolling Stones weren't on iTunes yet. Personally I HATE them, that's why I never checked.

Any other musicians not in the iTunes music store yet?
Click to expand...

Of the big bands, only AC-DC, The Beatles, Frank Zappa and Led Zepplin. Radiohead actually has two songs on iTunes.

Sure there are other bands not there, but these are the main ones missing.
 
I buy my CD's from pawn shops, then rip 'em to MP3. Cheaper, when you consider if I get sick of a particular disk, I can always sell it back to the pawn shop.

A few years ago Pepsi had this promotion during the summer where you got a free iTunes song download code under the cap of something like 1 in 4 bottles.

I ended up with a big bag of those winning caps, and gave most of them to my nephew. At the time, I found a lot of artists missing from the iTunes roster. AC/DC was one of them.

Nice that iTunes is expanding their catalog, but I doubt much of todays R&B and Hip Hop youth are going to flock to iTunes to get 'Why can't we do it in the road?".
 
whatever said:
Sometime I wonder if people actually use the products they talk about here.

The Rolling Stones have been in the iTunes music store for over a year. The currently have over 59 albums there and a new ep was released, I'm Free, just a couple of weeks ago.

Frank Zappa was on iTunes last summer and has since been removed. It was basically the albums that RYKODisc had re-mastered and released. There appears to be something going on with the Zappa Family Trust and RYKODisc over the rights.

Led Zepplin has never appeared on iTunes. However, Radio Head was on for a short time, but everyone who like Radio Head has already bought their one good album, The Bends.
Click to expand...

Actually I think KID A is one of the best albums of all time and I am a first gen Beatles Fan. KID A is so original and not like much else out there...especially when it was first released. Kind of like when Revolver or Pepper was first released. Now so many other records have repeated that sound...like that British "cover" band.... OASIS!
 
This would be a huge announcement if it comes in the next week or two. What a great way to get everyone talking about the iPod during the holiday shopping season.

The Beatles albums will sell... but more importantly, they will sell iPods.
 
Flowbee said:
This would be a huge announcement if it comes in the next week or two. What a great way to get everyone talking about the iPod during the holiday shopping season.

The Beatles albums will sell... but more importantly, they will sell iPods.
Click to expand...



It probably won't come before Christmas. Would cut into sales of the Beatles LOVE Songtrack. A MACWORLD accouncement would be about right!
 
spicyapple said:
They banned songs like Lucy in the Sky and Ticket to Ride... (not to mention Metallica's Seek and Destroy) because the songs reminded people of the event.
Click to expand...

And the lyrics to Daytripper foreshadow 9/11 as well (just change all occurances of the word "she" to "Achmed" and it all becomes crystal clear).
 
Case-sensitive said:
Lets hope they remaster them - the stereo effects on the original versions can be really painful on a pair of headphones.
Click to expand...

+1

The quality of The Beatles CD releases are, for the most part, poor. Of course, they date from 1987, and digital tech has improved greatly since then.

The music itself could also do with a remix. Mixing drums entirely in one stereo channel is difficult to take in headphones!
 
rigoni said:
What about a yellow Ipod?
Click to expand...

Now here is one place where the superiority of the Zune comes through. Many, many words rhyme with "Zune", in contrast to the sadly rhyme-challenged "iPod". You can even have:

"I played a mellow tune
On my yellow Zune."

With iPod, you pretty much run out after "tripod".
 
vi2867 said:
The money they are talking about doesn't really go to the Beatles, since the Beatles were bad financial managers when they were together, they get very little of this money. They all made their fortunes after the brake up...;)
Click to expand...

Not true at all.

There are several sources of income:

1. Writers royalties - goes to the original songwriter (50/50 between Macca and Yoko, or else Harrison or Starr)
2. Publishing royalties - goes to Sony and Michael Jackson (owners of the Northern Songs catalog)
3. Likeness royalties (e.g. The Beatles logo and images of the band) - goes to Apple Corps (owned 25% each by Macca/Yoko/Olivia Harrison/Ringo)

There also might be money going to EMI, who own the original recordings.

The Beatles stand to make HUGE money from this.
 
I also think that whoever has the remaining rights to this material realise that its shelf-life is almost up. In 5-10 years time, the broad appeal of much of this material may have less relevance to the average consumer and its perceived market-value may be far less.

That's not a comment on the merits of The Beatles' music; just my view based on many of the comments I read by what I am assuming are younger music listeners.

I'm 43, many of these songs are ingrained into my memory from childhood, but the only Beatles albums I would possibly be interested in are maybe 2-4 remastered CDs; I'm not interested in downloads at all. But to be honest, I don't feel that by not currently owning them that my music collection is lacking at all.
 
Blue Velvet said:
I also think that whoever has the remaining rights to this material realise that its shelf-life is almost up. In 5-10 years time, the broad appeal of much of this material may have less relevance to the average consumer and its perceived market-value may be far less.

That's not a comment on the merits of The Beatles' music; just my view based on many of the comments I read by what I am assuming are younger music listeners.

I'm 43, many of these songs are ingrained into my memory from childhood, but the only Beatles albums I would possibly be interested in are maybe 2-4 remastered CDs; I'm not interested in downloads at all. But to be honest, I don't feel that by not currently owning them that my music collection is lacking at all.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

There will be Beatles songs that are removed from the public conciousness in the way you describe, but there will be others that live on. Likewise, the image of the Beatles is long-lasting. I think the time will come that Apple (Corps) will not be able to think up new ways of presenting the music, or people will tire of new ways of hearing the music. In that respect, the revenue stream might dry up.

But the image of the Beatles as the greatest pop/rock band, the music and social innovators, is enduring.
 
This would explain why their catalogue was discounted to itunes album pricing lately, grab the $10-per-album crowd's money while they can.

Music released to stores in January are what labels think have no shot. Unless itunes is different, I wouldn't expect Beatles there until March, possibly next Fall to make a big splash for xmas shoppers. The "1" album oughta be the biggest seller.

I found an article that says Lennon's rights reverted to his estate as the original 28-year period expired during the 90's. If true, McCartney and Sony/Jackson split the other 50%.

BTW, clearchannel didn't ban. Stations could take the advice or ignore it. Govt. censorship is all that truly matters, anyway. Radio Disney won't play death metal. oh no, BANNED! *eyeroll*
 
psychedelic?

Ahh A psychedelic ipod me thinks???
4230b830d4f1f41fc2a105b91bf48479200611270_full.jpg

The iPod will sell- but the music- most people who like the Beatles already have the music- it's if they can be bothered paying again with the DRM involved.

Fmolly
 
Blue Velvet said:
I also think that whoever has the remaining rights to this material realise that its shelf-life is almost up. In 5-10 years time, the broad appeal of much of this material may have less relevance to the average consumer and its perceived market-value may be far less.

That's not a comment on the merits of The Beatles' music; just my view based on many of the comments I read by what I am assuming are younger music listeners.

I'm 43, many of these songs are ingrained into my memory from childhood, but the only Beatles albums I would possibly be interested in are maybe 2-4 remastered CDs; I'm not interested in downloads at all. But to be honest, I don't feel that by not currently owning them that my music collection is lacking at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I'm young and I love the Beatles. They may decrease in popularity, but I don't expect them to go away ever. Also, it is still quite common for popular artists to cover Beatles songs. Just do a search for some songs on iTunes.

Beethoven and Mozart aren't the most popular artists on the charts today, but their music is still very well known and loved. I expect the Beatles to be known and loved in 100 years. Practically everybody would recognize the opening of Beethoven's fifth, even if they didn't know it was the fifth or that it was written by Beethoven. The Beatles may not reach that level, but their music will be around. They are the most popular artists of this century.
 
nemaslov said:
It probably won't come before Christmas. Would cut into sales of the Beatles LOVE Songtrack. A Macworld accouncement would be about right!
Click to expand...

I agree it might cut into sales of the physical CD, but I think overall sales of the album would skyrocket if it were on iTunes. Making it available on iTunes now would also stop some people from going to the "file sharing" sites to find it. On Amazon.com the CD is selling for $9.72. I have a feeling that on iTunes it would be at least $12.99... and people would pay it. Record company profits either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back