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 Still Hung Up on 'Business Hassles'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who releases their catalog to iTunes first - The Beatles or AC/DC?
Edit: I see that Ghostface and I were thinking alike.
Edit: I see that Ghostface and I were thinking alike.
Wait? The Beatles still aren't on iTunes?
This is reached a Duke Nukem Forever level of funny.
Will it be "big news" when they finally are digitally published in 2016?
This is reached a Duke Nukem Forever level of funny.
Will it be "big news" when they finally are digitally published in 2016?
Beatle CD's are expensive 
So EMI's still stupid... Why am I not suprised?
We need to get rid of those record companies, way too much money lost and only stupid decisions...
So EMI's still stupid... Why am I not suprised?
We need to get rid of those record companies, way too much money lost and only stupid decisions...
The problem I have with the whole "so what, just buy them on CD and rip them" argument is that it is an excuse - it doesn't change the status quo and gives into laziness. Plus it just negates the benefits of the iTunes store for anything. 'Who needs <insert name of popular artist> on iTunes, if you are a fan you should just buy the CD?!" The purpose of iTunes exists because people want a modern venue for music consumption that doesn't requiire the ownership of physical media that you have to hunt down.
I mean if people are just going to thrown down the old canard of "buy the CD", you might as well just argue to close the iTunes music store and just buy CD's like the record studios want you to do since it support's their bottom line better.
I mean if people are just going to thrown down the old canard of "buy the CD", you might as well just argue to close the iTunes music store and just buy CD's like the record studios want you to do since it support's their bottom line better.
A lot of it has to do with the re-mixes.
Even the original stereo recordings were bizarrely mixed, with drums coming out of one side and vocals out of the other. EQ also needs to be adjusted in the source to account for modern listening patterns... (earbuds, or sound systems with mega woofers, etc.)
There have been a lot of advancements (and changes of taste) regarding mixing and processing in the past 40 years.
Interesting factoid... one of the keys to Motown's success was that one of the final mixes was run through car speakers to tweek for the most likely place their music was going to be heard. Genius.
Though you know that they released it on that apple-shaped USB drive, right? They want to keep the brand and distribution to themselves, but frankly, how could you effectively compete with iTunes nowadays? This is their financial loss.
I'm sure my great great grandchildren will enjoy hearing the Beatles catalog when it's finally added to the iTunes Store.
By then iTunes will be irrelevant and we will all be accessing the Internet via signals off the upper atmosphere without any infrastructure between us and public domain historic music.
Beatles for the Lazy
Not that this stops anyone from owning Beatles songs, even legally, as noted many places above....
I guess they are completely forgetting the Lazy People market. These are the people that wouldn't bother to drive to the store, buy the CDs for $30, rip them, then add to Itunes. Guilty!
What I mean is they are truly missing a lot of chances to sell millions of singles on impulse buying.
I very often buy songs using my iPhone on impulse. However, I have recently found quite a few songs that were on Amazon that were not on iTunes. In fact, some songs definitely were on iTunes, and now definitely are not. I recently found some early Who songs on Amazon that didn't seem to be on iTunes. You have to wonder what the business reasons are.
Not that this stops anyone from owning Beatles songs, even legally, as noted many places above....
I guess they are completely forgetting the Lazy People market. These are the people that wouldn't bother to drive to the store, buy the CDs for $30, rip them, then add to Itunes. Guilty!
What I mean is they are truly missing a lot of chances to sell millions of singles on impulse buying.
I very often buy songs using my iPhone on impulse. However, I have recently found quite a few songs that were on Amazon that were not on iTunes. In fact, some songs definitely were on iTunes, and now definitely are not. I recently found some early Who songs on Amazon that didn't seem to be on iTunes. You have to wonder what the business reasons are.
That's the problem with my generation. The majority of us listen to talentless idiots who talk into a microphone with a computerized beat and it's called music. The rest of today's "musicians" sing by using autotune.
Their is almost no good music made anymore.
Don
Seriously this story is boring.
Most apple fanboys aren't beatles fans but somehow your heart aches for Steve jobs dream to have beatles on iTunes
Most apple fanboys aren't beatles fans but somehow your heart aches for Steve jobs dream to have beatles on iTunes
Who cares? Who doesn't have music by the beatles now? 8 track, vinyl, cassette, CD, mp3, etc etc. Why is getting them on iTunes such a big deal?
If you are a parent or a student... experience new and old music. Check out other artists and genres. I played music in the car and at home all of the time when my son was born in 1990. The Beatles, Stones, Ry Cooder, Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, Patti Smith, Frank Sinatra, Tom Waits, REM, Phillip Glass, The Clash and Sex Pistols and so much more. He heard so much and over the years asked to hear more. Some artists he loved and some he didn't but now (at 19) he is open to virtually everything and turns me on to new sounds. It is too bad when anyone limits themselves to only one or two kinds of music downloadadble or otherwise).
The Beatles (and those who controlled how their oeuvre was distributed) have always been reluctant to whore the music - e.g. advertisements, jingles, etc. I always found it refreshing that they weren't just looking to hock the music to whoever offered them the most money (qv Rolling Stones as a corporate whorehouse when it comes to musical integrity).
It's less strict these days than in the past but it seems it was a deliberate attempt to keep the aura of the Beatles catalogue. Nowadays it seems it's not so important. Maybe the ubiquitous record/CD/download/streaming options have killed that protective stance. I'm sure that eventually the catalogue will be on iTunes. I doubt if those benefiting from this (not including the "real" Apple or EMI) would be pushing it that hard. In their own time seems to be the order of the day. The money keeps on pouring in regardless.
Forget Arizona, Boycott EMI!
"There are probably a handful of songs that a lot of people want, but don't want to buy the whole sets."
The problem with that is, at least from my opinion, there are only a handful of Beatle songs that I don't want per album and therefore would not mind if I bought the whole set.
However, with todays "music", I concur regarding your thought!
'
'
'
I suppose this still boils down to believing they have a premium product that they can make you pay $30 for a whole album rather than $.99 for a song.
These are the people that wouldn't bother to drive to the store, buy the CDs for $30, rip them, then add to Itunes. Guilty!
Well it isn't as if everybody has access to a record store that is open 24/7 that happens to have inventory of every CD that you or anybody else happens to want - CD's don't get sold forever. I like to buy from iTunes for one simple reason - instant gratification whenever I want. No going out and hoping a store nearby has inventory and no waiting for a CD to ship that may only have a few songs that I really like.
I have refused to buy CD's for years now - I have way too many of them taking space and I never use them - they are a waste of resources and space but I cannot sell them (otherwise I would legally no longer be able to retain the tracks I ripped).
And no I do not own all of the Beatles Albums and no, they are not readily available.
God, why should I care? The CD's are all available in a bargain bin near you for a fraction of the cost they will be on iTunes at better quality. People have had 40 years, the target market already owns the vinyl, the CD's, the box sets.
I don't get why this gets so much attention.
I don't get why this gets so much attention.
Getting the Beatles on iTunes will be great for the casual Beatles fan who just wants to pick up a few songs here and there. And even then, probably most were able to get what they wanted from the Blue Album (which I had on vinyl as a kid, along with Abbey Road) or maybe the "1" collection But, yes, there are always going to be casual fans who want to have "Dear Prudence" and "Blackbird" from the White Album without dropping $25-$30 for all the "experimental" stuff.
Personally, with the release of the remastered CDs last year from Rubber Soul through Let It Be and Past Masters (and most of the original CDs releases from the late '80 remasters that I've had for years), I already have everything I'd ever want.
BTW, the torrents crowd was always going to pirate what songs they wanted, whether or not they showed up on iTunes. That's a non-issue and shouldn't even enter into the discussion.
Personally, with the release of the remastered CDs last year from Rubber Soul through Let It Be and Past Masters (and most of the original CDs releases from the late '80 remasters that I've had for years), I already have everything I'd ever want.
BTW, the torrents crowd was always going to pirate what songs they wanted, whether or not they showed up on iTunes. That's a non-issue and shouldn't even enter into the discussion.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.