if its not news and not a scoop then why say anything about it at all. if this guy really wants to shake the media of this story he should say nothing rather than try to smooth the ripples off the water.
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.
Beatles on iTunes? Maybe Not Yet...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If he is "pretty sure"...
Maybe AFTER his divorce is settled?
We previously reported on Page 2 about reports that Paul McCartney has reached a $400 million agreement with iTunes for the distribution of the Beatles' back catalog.
Word spread quickly about the imminent deal, but today, Apple actually denied the claim according to Billboard:
Rumors of the Beatles appearing on iTunes have persisted for years with Steve Jobs specifically targeting "the first half" of 2008 in an interview with USA Today. Paul McCartney had also felt "pretty sure it'll be happening [in 2008]".
Article Link
Maybe AFTER his divorce is settled?
If they're fans, they probably own the CDs and have ripped them on their own a long time ago. DRM'd copies on itunes is just for the one-and-two song people...
Well, I'm 28 & love the beatles and have much of their catalogue burnt into my mind by my parents (my mum was a huge fan, wrote letters to them, got replies, etc)
My parents have the entire collection - I dont have *anything*, and generally I'm trying to get rid of CDs in my house, not get a tonne more!
itunes is convenient, as long as they're itunes+ I'm sure a lot of people will buy them. Enough to make it worthwhile for sure.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
I agree. I am sure it is coming sometime in the future we just don't know when.
Jetson said:That wasn't really a denial.
It just seemed that Apple didn't want to discuss it because something's about to happen at any time, maybe.
I agree. I am sure it is coming sometime in the future we just don't know when.
Slow news day huh ?
Seriously.. who cares whether the beatles is on iTunes or not.
However, my wife refuses to use itunes because everytime she looks on there, she says hardly any of her music is on it. (her music tends to be chart CD's in the top 10 as well).
So rather than focus on 60's Beatles for obsence money, how about getting more current bands actually on there in the first place.
Seriously.. who cares whether the beatles is on iTunes or not.
However, my wife refuses to use itunes because everytime she looks on there, she says hardly any of her music is on it. (her music tends to be chart CD's in the top 10 as well).
So rather than focus on 60's Beatles for obsence money, how about getting more current bands actually on there in the first place.
You need to understand the difference between publishing rights and performance rights. Jackson owns the publishing rights to most of the Beatles songs.
I wondered the exact same thing. Who doesn't have some Beatles who are fans to begin with?
This is soooo boring. I was given a disc with all The Beatles MP3s in 1999. It was kind of exciting then, even though I had previously bought all the CDs AND my dad had them all on vinyl. I can't imagine who is waiting to buy Beatles songs off iTunes in 2008.
Supposedly Apple keeps about 1/3 (33 cents) of the cost per track. If they pay $400 million for the right to sell the Beatles tunes, they're going to have to sell roughly 1.2 billion Beatles singles to break even on this. Let's say roughly 10 tracks per album. That's 120 million albums sold to break even.
The best selling albums of all time the U.S. have only sold 25-27 million total over their lifetime. How the hell is Apple going to make any money on this deal? It seems stupid to me.
The best selling albums of all time the U.S. have only sold 25-27 million total over their lifetime. How the hell is Apple going to make any money on this deal? It seems stupid to me.
McCartney
funny thing, i think Michael Jackson actually holds the rights to a noticeable amount of Beatles songs... i may be way off, but i think he does.
We previously reported on Page 2 about reports that Paul McCartney has reached a $400 million agreement with iTunes for the distribution of the Beatles' back catalog.
Word spread quickly about the imminent deal, but today, Apple actually denied the claim according to Billboard:
Rumors of the Beatles appearing on iTunes have persisted for years with Steve Jobs specifically targeting "the first half" of 2008 in an interview with USA Today. Paul McCartney had also felt "pretty sure it'll be happening [in 2008]".
Article Link
funny thing, i think Michael Jackson actually holds the rights to a noticeable amount of Beatles songs... i may be way off, but i think he does.
I guess I'm pathetic then. I own none of their albums for the reason that I didn't want the physical crap that goes along with an album.
I'm patient. So, I'm pathetic? Weird.
I think he owns the publishing rights. I think that's different than the actual recordings.
I'm looking for the remastered versions of the Beatles songs - that's what's worth waiting on.
They did a great job remastering certain tracks as they appear on "The Beatles 1" and "Love" albums. Generally the Beatles albums on CD sound pretty good, but those 2 albums give a hint of how wonderful the entire Beatles catalog would sound.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour, and the White Album could all benefit from a top notch remaster job.
I would most likely buy these on CD rather than iTunes, but having them for sale on iTunes would prove to be quite lucrative for Apple.
TO EVERYONE WHO KEEPS WRITING ABOUT JACKSON OWNING THE BEATLES::: WRONG. He owns only the PUBLISHING of the catalogue. The SONGS and NOT the recordings BUT a few years ago he had to sell about half back to Sony since he has been in debt with them. So yes he owns some. He can NEVER license the actually records but can license songs for others to cover. That's why you are hearing so many cover Beatles songs on commercials now. The Beatles families hate that but it is out of their control. You don't hear the actual Beatles recordings in commercials. But you will for an iTunes commercial I bet when they go digital...but that is selling the songs (and iPods ) and not endorsing some other product.
THIS EXPLAINS IT ALL: http://www.cnet.com.au/mp3players/musicsoftware/0,239029154,339286668,00.htm
I wouldn't buy it either, honestly ....
Although I like most rock music, from the latest "modern rock" to most "classic rock" of the 60's - I don't generally have any interest in buying the classic rock such as the works of The Beatles in a digital format.
Like others have said, most of us have heard all of this material MANY times already. At least 2 FM radio stations in town have their music in regular rotation, and have done so since I was old enough to know who they were.
I'd think the most attractive way to own Beatles music would be in its originally released format, on LP records, so at least the physical media would have some collector and/or nostalgic value.
From the standpoint of iTunes offering a "complete" selection of music, it's nice to know Beatles songs might be available there, I guess. But I won't be likely to pay anything to help make that profitable for Apple. Others probably will, though. It's up to them to decide the eventual "value" in having the catalog available though.
Although I like most rock music, from the latest "modern rock" to most "classic rock" of the 60's - I don't generally have any interest in buying the classic rock such as the works of The Beatles in a digital format.
Like others have said, most of us have heard all of this material MANY times already. At least 2 FM radio stations in town have their music in regular rotation, and have done so since I was old enough to know who they were.
I'd think the most attractive way to own Beatles music would be in its originally released format, on LP records, so at least the physical media would have some collector and/or nostalgic value.
From the standpoint of iTunes offering a "complete" selection of music, it's nice to know Beatles songs might be available there, I guess. But I won't be likely to pay anything to help make that profitable for Apple. Others probably will, though. It's up to them to decide the eventual "value" in having the catalog available though.
You are correct. Although many young people reject the Beatles' music
out of a reflexive rebelliousness against their parents, there are also
many who have open minds and like to hear (and buy) high quality
music, no matter how long ago it was produced. Original Beatles fans
will buy if the remastering with modern equipment improves the
audio quality (something us unrepentant 60's weirdos still appreciate).
Believe it or not, there are young people discovering music for
the first time every day. The Beatles wrote songs with universal
themes and melodies which were and still are appealing to
many people. When new listeners first hear the Beatles, some
will like them and some will not. Of those who like them, some
will buy tracks from iTunes, if they are available.
No offenses but if you, or anybody, really don't care about The Beatles on iTunes Music Store, then why even bother to post on a thread that talks about that very specific subject?