Apple Corps Confirms Beatles Coming To iTunes

[Flowbee]

Couldn't find a link to this here yet...

Reporter Roger Friedman claims Apple Corps executive Neil Aspinall confirmed to him that the Beatles core catalog has been remastered and is ready to release via online music stores. No dates given. He also says that no one online store will get an exclusive deal.

Here's the link (Foxnews.com)

If you'd rather not visit Foxnews.com, I've written about the story on my site and included all of the relevant quotes.

 

[72930]

Meh...anticlimax galore...

 

[bartelby]

Oooh, I can hardly contain my excitement... oh no, wait... I can...

 

[Flowbee]

Obviously, we've all assumed this was happening, but the real news is that Apple Corps is saying iTunes won't get the exclusive deal that has been rumored for months. No exclusive deal, no Beatles-edition iPod? We'll see...

 

[72930]

Obviously, we've all assumed this was happening, but the real news is that Apple Corps is saying iTunes won't get the exclusive deal that has been rumored for months. No exclusive deal, no Beatles-edition iPod? We'll see...

Are U2 exclusive? Because they have a U2 iPod...why do you connect the two?

 

[Flowbee]

Are U2 exclusive? Because they have a U2 iPod...why do you connect the two?

First off, the rumors have connected the two. And it makes sense that an exclusive deal would add some juice to Beatles iPod announcement.

U2 released the song Vertigo exclusively on iTunes prior to the announcement of the U2 iPod. They also let Apple sell an exclusive digital box set in conjunction with the release of the U2 iPod.

I'm not making any predictions. Just pointing out that one part of the "Beatles on iTunes" rumor appears to be wrong, and maybe that says something about the other Beatles rumors.

 

[backsidetailsli]

**** 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?

 

[EricNau]

I never expected an exclusive license between iTunes and the Beatles. I always figured it would be all or none.

 

[Alex3231]

so does that mean that the beatles are going to get money from the iTunes and iPod sales or something like that?

 

[macfan881]

first off i wont belive any story that comes off of that station what so ever till i hear its ben confirmed by steve himself

 

[0007776]

so does that mean that the beatles are going to get money from the iTunes and iPod sales or something like that?

They will get money from sales of their songs on iTunes, but not from iPods unless there is a beatles iPod.

 

[Alex3231]

They will get money from sales of their songs on iTunes, but not from iPods unless there is a beatles iPod.

Good. Because I do love Paul, Ringo, John and George except they and their familes really don't need to be any richer.

 

[BillyShears]

The Beatles are exceptional

**** 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?

The Beatles are a very popular band that are not yet on any music service. Regardless of your opinion of them, having them exclusively on iTunes would be beneficial for Apple. It's also of interest because of the trademark settlement.

 

[Whistleway]

Why the heck does it need to be exclusive?

What's wrong with some of the posters here?

 

[Digitalclips]

Why the heck does it need to be exclusive?

What's wrong with some of the posters here?

How about all Ringo's vocal tracks being allowed out on Zunes ands Apple have the rest ...

 

[bigjohn]

First, I thought Michael Jackson or Sony or someone else owned the rights to the Beatles catalog...

Second, if you like the Beatles, just buy the CD, get your high quality non-DRM version for the same price, and rip it into whatever format you like.

It astounds me why people spend so much time fretting over iTunes music store announcements - paying 99 cents for a low-fi version of a song is a total rip.

 

[Analog Kid]

For some reason the "How PC of them!" comment turned me off to the whole article. I don't see anything there I'd trust-- just some guy trying to make it sound like he hung out with Aspinall on the weekend. "Dude, that Allen Klein guy totally screwed up Hey Jude..."

Whatever... Big news is next story down: Police Reunion Tour! Woohoo!

 

[quigleybc]

wake me when there is something interesting on page 1

 

[Rot'nApple]

**** the beatles

Envy just doesn't suit some people

they were in the right place at the right time

True, but talent played a big part because without it, they would not have been the Mega Band they became

over rated and over hyped.

Better to be that, then under rated and no hype

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

First, "Artist" can be very elusively defined. What is music to some, is pure noise pollution to others, but that's my .02

 

[Digitalclips]

Reporter Roger Friedman claims Apple Corps executive Neil Aspinall confirmed to him that the Beatles core catalog has been remastered and is ready to release via online music stores. No dates given. He also says that no one online store will get an exclusive deal.

It says this on the Fox site... go figure??

"Now that Aspinall has “won” his longstanding lawsuit with Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer), he says downloaded Beatle songs will be coming to us soon."

 

[Curtis72]

First, I thought Michael Jackson or Sony or someone else owned the rights to the Beatles catalog...

Second, if you like the Beatles, just buy the CD, get your high quality non-DRM version for the same price, and rip it into whatever format you like.

It astounds me why people spend so much time fretting over iTunes music store announcements - paying 99 cents for a low-fi version of a song is a total rip.

A few AAC and MP3's (even low bit rate ones) sound great. It all depends on the song. But I have given up with trying to find CD singles in record stores.

As for Apple paying Apple Corps for each iTunes song/iPod sold. That is complete crap. Apple, Inc won the case. The Beatles were appealing. Apple, Inc had the upper hand.

 

[Digitalclips]

Whatever... Big news is next story down: Police Reunion Tour! Woohoo!

Talking of which, I did laugh at the joke on the Grammy's about some rappers leaving quickly when they heard the Police had arrived ..."

 

[Mgkwho]

So it's not an if but when...and we know iTunes will definitely carry the Beatles...

all we need is love, this Valentines Day.

okay, and like 12 other albums...

-=|Mgkwho

 

[Alex3231]

Talking of which, I did laugh at the joke on the Grammy's about some rappers leaving quickly when they heard the Police had arrived ..."

oh my god that is pretty funny!

 

[SeaFox]

First, I thought Michael Jackson or Sony or someone else owned the rights to the Beatles catalog...

He owns the rights to some of the printed (sheet) music catalog, not the recordings that become the albums. And he really doesn't own them at the moment, as I think they are now in the hands of his creditors while he pays off his debts.

Second, if you like the Beatles, just buy the CD, get your high quality non-DRM version for the same price, and rip it into whatever format you like.

Exactly. Funny, I have many Beatles albums, but for some reason I have not ripped then to iTunes, but I have almost all my other CDs.