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
I'd like to see the Beatles on iTunes. For me it is more about the purchasing model. I would like to be able to download a Beatles song or album right to my iPhone/iPod/iPad rather than buying a cd and ripping it to iTunes.
Having the Beatles on iTunes would just be more convenient.
Having the Beatles on iTunes would just be more convenient.
It gets attention because this band broke up forty year ago and by all measures are still considered the most popular band ever. During the past decade they had the number one selling album and sold more records than anyone else of the past ten years (except for Emenem). Not bad for a band whose records are already owned by almost everyone. It that had gone on iTunes even two years ago they would have been the number one seller of the past decade. It matters because they changed everything and influenced so many other musicians and bands that you juts might like now.
Thee is just so much you can milk from the Beatles. It is nearing near a half century since their debut and that says a lot!
Of course the record label is afraid of that ONE-SONG-PER PURCHASE business model and I understand they fear sales will drop because of it. But hey, what you going to do?
Of course the record label is afraid of that ONE-SONG-PER PURCHASE business model and I understand they fear sales will drop because of it. But hey, what you going to do?
Byzantine Copyrights
I am sure it is the Byzantine labyrinth of copyright holders of the Beatles library that are holding things back. Everybody thinks everyone else is trying to rip them off. The Jackson estate wants this, Sony wants that, Ono Yōko wants her piece of the action, and God knows who else has their finger in the pie. This paranoid distrust has directly led to millions of sales being lost. What is so sad is there are thousands of hours of studio recordings of the Beatles that have never been released. I have a really nice studio bootleg of nearly 50 different arrangements of Strawberry Fields Forever (SFF). In it you can hear John Lennon, and Paul McCartney discussing SFF and how a passage should be played this way or that, a fascinating window into the creative chemistry between these two musicians. I grew up with the Beatles. I watched them live on the Ed Sullivan Show. I have every one of their releases on my hard drives and many that came from sources I know not from where. So while the copyright holders argue over what part of the Beatles potential cash flow is theirs the iceberg is melting away.
It goes without saying all of the above parties are scared to death of iTunes. Apple is the 8000 ton Godzilla in the music retailing world. They know once they make a deal with Apple they will have to stick with it, and not try to milk more money out of things once they release recordings to iTunes. Every time they have tried to muscle Apple into more money they have to give up something in return. It was so sweet when Apple told the minions of the RIAA OK you can have more money for new releases but in exchange for that no DRM. Because Apple had them by the gonads they had to give in.
I am sure it is the Byzantine labyrinth of copyright holders of the Beatles library that are holding things back. Everybody thinks everyone else is trying to rip them off. The Jackson estate wants this, Sony wants that, Ono Yōko wants her piece of the action, and God knows who else has their finger in the pie. This paranoid distrust has directly led to millions of sales being lost. What is so sad is there are thousands of hours of studio recordings of the Beatles that have never been released. I have a really nice studio bootleg of nearly 50 different arrangements of Strawberry Fields Forever (SFF). In it you can hear John Lennon, and Paul McCartney discussing SFF and how a passage should be played this way or that, a fascinating window into the creative chemistry between these two musicians. I grew up with the Beatles. I watched them live on the Ed Sullivan Show. I have every one of their releases on my hard drives and many that came from sources I know not from where. So while the copyright holders argue over what part of the Beatles potential cash flow is theirs the iceberg is melting away.
It goes without saying all of the above parties are scared to death of iTunes. Apple is the 8000 ton Godzilla in the music retailing world. They know once they make a deal with Apple they will have to stick with it, and not try to milk more money out of things once they release recordings to iTunes. Every time they have tried to muscle Apple into more money they have to give up something in return. It was so sweet when Apple told the minions of the RIAA OK you can have more money for new releases but in exchange for that no DRM. Because Apple had them by the gonads they had to give in.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
uhmmmm if your talking red hot. then they are..
http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/red-hot-chili-peppers/id889780
I bought the vinyl albums when they were originally released. I bought the CDs when they were first released in the 80s. I bought the remastered mono and stereo box sets when they came out last year. I will buy them again when they get around to remixing the songs and releasing them on a high definition digital medium like Blu-ray. However, I have no interest in buying the songs on iTunes. The quality will just not be good enough. By the way, for those who don't want to go through the trouble of ripping the songs from CDs, the stereo box set was also released in 44.1 kHz 24-bit FLAC format on a 16 GB USB flash drive. The drive also includes 320 kbps MP3s of all the songs.
Do you want to know a secret? EMI are holding out for a deal, they are getting better, but right now I've got a feeling they're biding their time to see what goes on.
Sir Paul on the other hand isn't exactly in misery, he can just wait too, there's a lot of junk out there and I suppose they just need to get back in the room and hammer out a deal.
The real problem right now is searchin for the guys (and possibly a girl) who are making money out of someone elses property. The trail could actually lead anywhere, I bet it's a long and winding road and they'll probably end up back in the USSR.
It's a beginning I suppose.
Sir Paul on the other hand isn't exactly in misery, he can just wait too, there's a lot of junk out there and I suppose they just need to get back in the room and hammer out a deal.
The real problem right now is searchin for the guys (and possibly a girl) who are making money out of someone elses property. The trail could actually lead anywhere, I bet it's a long and winding road and they'll probably end up back in the USSR.
It's a beginning I suppose.
Really? That's cool if they are! The last time I looked they only had cover bands for their songs.
The swingin' 60s, baby, yeah!
If 256kbps AAC files aren't good enough for your ear, I'm surprised 44.1kHz 24-bit FLAC files are either. I'm not sure what we would gain with 96kHz 24-bit files on such an old recording though. The master tape hiss would be extraordinarily clear.
BTW: EMI thanks you for your business.
-Aaron-
If 256kbps AAC files aren't good enough for your ear, I'm surprised 44.1kHz 24-bit FLAC files are either. I'm not sure what we would gain with 96kHz 24-bit files on such an old recording though. The master tape hiss would be extraordinarily clear.
BTW: EMI thanks you for your business.
-Aaron-
+1!! Awesome.
And yeah, I agree too that it would be beneficial for the Beatles to be on iTunes. Sure, all the die-hards have every version of every recording they made already, but the newer (and younger) fans don't. I can't picture a casual fan going to the trouble to find and import a CD, especially if they've grown up with the convenience of digital downloads. And just think of all the impulse single-song purchases that could be made.
Please note where I said "waiting to ship" and "available 24/7". None of those sources offer that service.
Not to mention offering individual tracks - If I wanted something only found on the White Album, I have to spend 30 bucks to get it. Why should I have to do that?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Actually you would probably pay 18.99 for the remastered White Album on Amazon with no sales tax and probably free shipping. You would get all thirty songs. If you purchased the songs individually, that would cost you almost $30.
I think it would be great if the beatles were on there. This way a whole new generation of people could listen to them, With that said i still cannot believe bob seger is on not on itunes either.
There's no reason for EMI to hold these tracks back - it's the Beatles that are the problem.
They are arguably the most important band of the rock era and have used their status to renegotiate at every opportunity in order to fill their pockets with more money. And they don't really get along - so every potential project crawls along.
There are many well-documented stories of these trials, so I'm surprised that anyone thinks EMI is looking to restrict their potential earnings or that Paul "I'm Not Rich Enough Yet" McCartney has the nerve to say it's EMI causing the delays.
It only took the band 20 years to release their upgraded CD masters (which were finished at least two years before the actual release) - does anyone think EMI couldn't have used that money earlier or that they would have tried to prevent it coming in?
The Beatles were one of the last major bands to have their catalog on CD - it's rare that they move with speed on any front. I say go buy the CDs, rip 'em, and sell them on Amazon. You'll end up spending $2-$3 for each CD - getting all the songs on an album for the price of 3. Or better yet - check em out of the library and pay nothing.
They are arguably the most important band of the rock era and have used their status to renegotiate at every opportunity in order to fill their pockets with more money. And they don't really get along - so every potential project crawls along.
There are many well-documented stories of these trials, so I'm surprised that anyone thinks EMI is looking to restrict their potential earnings or that Paul "I'm Not Rich Enough Yet" McCartney has the nerve to say it's EMI causing the delays.
It only took the band 20 years to release their upgraded CD masters (which were finished at least two years before the actual release) - does anyone think EMI couldn't have used that money earlier or that they would have tried to prevent it coming in?
The Beatles were one of the last major bands to have their catalog on CD - it's rare that they move with speed on any front. I say go buy the CDs, rip 'em, and sell them on Amazon. You'll end up spending $2-$3 for each CD - getting all the songs on an album for the price of 3. Or better yet - check em out of the library and pay nothing.
Here is mentioned one the complaints I have about iPods, is their inablilty to play any of the lossless codex's such as FLAC. Having said this however I have a hard time telling the difference with a set of mid range earbuds between an 320 kbps MP3, and a much higher kbps rate FLAC recording. Blame this on the aging ears of a jazz/big band low brass musician with trap set blasted ears
Firstly regarding CD stores. There's few of these around these days, and even fewer that carry the entire Beatles back catalogue. In my town there's at least six outlets that sell iTunes gift cards, yet only one store that sells CDs, and they're limited to just the current top 30 titles.
Secondly the Beatles catalogue is subject to all kinds of legal problems regarding ownership which don't apply to many other artists. There complications due to the contracts that Parlophone established with EMIs other international divisions worldwide. There's many other rights issues caused by renegotiation of their contract post-split, one of which prevents EMI from packaging titles in formats other than the original UK singles, EPs, albums and a few other compilations. (This all stems down to EMI issuing a slew of dodgy compilations when one contract expired in 1976.)
Thirdly EMI have already issued the groups entire stereo catalogue in MP3 and 24-bit FLAC format, as a limited-edition USB key device.
Fourthly EMI are in deep financial trouble. Many major acts have already deserted them - even McCartney has recently taken his back-catalogue from them to Concorde Music. (This explains why only a small portion of McCartney's catalogue is currently in the iTunes store). EMI have even tried, unsuccessfully, to sub-license parts of their back catalogue to other major labels to inject cash. They may be deliberately holding off the launch as part of negotiations on their future.
Secondly the Beatles catalogue is subject to all kinds of legal problems regarding ownership which don't apply to many other artists. There complications due to the contracts that Parlophone established with EMIs other international divisions worldwide. There's many other rights issues caused by renegotiation of their contract post-split, one of which prevents EMI from packaging titles in formats other than the original UK singles, EPs, albums and a few other compilations. (This all stems down to EMI issuing a slew of dodgy compilations when one contract expired in 1976.)
Thirdly EMI have already issued the groups entire stereo catalogue in MP3 and 24-bit FLAC format, as a limited-edition USB key device.
Fourthly EMI are in deep financial trouble. Many major acts have already deserted them - even McCartney has recently taken his back-catalogue from them to Concorde Music. (This explains why only a small portion of McCartney's catalogue is currently in the iTunes store). EMI have even tried, unsuccessfully, to sub-license parts of their back catalogue to other major labels to inject cash. They may be deliberately holding off the launch as part of negotiations on their future.