Beatles on iTunes Still Hung Up on 'Business Hassles'

[Plutonius]

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?

I wish you would not generalize for everyone else.

I only have 3 beatles cds and would buy the rest if they came to iTunes (or Amazon). I'm not an audiophile (can't hear the difference between the cd and iTunes) and I no longer buy physical cds (all my music is either amazon or iTunes) because I have enough space taken up by computer cds and old music cds.

 

[Plutonius]

Can you really tell the difference? Seriously? Get real! Background noise is statistically far greater than the compression induced noise. Jeezum, people just look for something to whine about. Hear that whine? It's the sound of compression down to 0 bits.

+1.....

I'm sure some people can hear the difference since they have $300.00 earbuds or a killer audio system but it all sounds the same to most of us.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Zzzzzz. Seriously, are we still talking about the Beatles on iTunes? Don't we all already have all the Beatles from CD?

Is the digital music world still counting on an approving nod from the Beatles before it can become truly relevant and legitimate? Lame. At this point, digital music retailers should refuse to sell anything from the Beatles (if ever offered) on principle.

ITs a bit like the gaming industry's self esteem issue, and that it has to be declared as an art form before it can be taken seriously.

 

[awesomebase]

Nobody cares

How many different media do you want the White Album on? Please... anybody that has the Beatles has probably bought it for the last time... with both CD players on computers and record players with USB connections, people can digitize their own albums without the cost...

Honestly, I think digitizing Mozart is more exciting than this...

 

[Ramvolter]

It won't be cheaper... at least not 50%

If they would be more than 9,99/album, then i would possibly get them on cd or not buy at all.

 

[John.B]

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.

That's true with Amazon, but with iTunes you could always use the "Complete My Album" feature to pick up the rest of the songs at a difference between the cost of the songs you previously bought and the cost of the album. This is one of the cooler features of iTunes, and one of the things that demonstrates how much Amazon still doesn't "get it" (that and their anemic "Search" capabilities).

 

[RalfTheDog]

Can you really tell the difference? Seriously? Get real! Background noise is statistically far greater than the compression induced noise. Jeezum, people just look for something to whine about. Hear that whine? It's the sound of compression down to 0 bits.

It is not about noise. It is about limited frequencies. There are things you can hear uncompressed that you can't hear compressed.

Hyper compressed low bitrate audio bites the big pickle.

 

[fourthtunz]

It's the rumor that undoubtedly won't die until it comes true, but the BBC takes another look at the prospect of The Beatles coming to Apple's iTunes Store, a topic that has been raised on a regular basis going back to the launch of the iTunes Music Store. According to Paul McCartney, the continued holdup is due to record label EMI.For its part, EMI has continued to remain essentially quiet on the subject, again sharing its oft-repeated claim that "discussions are ongoing" and noting that it would "love to see The Beatles' music available for sale digitally.

Considering their status as one of the biggest selling, if not the biggest selling, music acts in history, The Beatles have been one of the highest-profile omissions from the iTunes Store since its inception.

Article Link: Beatles on iTunes Still Hung Up on 'Business Hassles'

I think the Beatles are still the biggest selling, like McDonalds...
Billions and Billions
And to the people who aren't Beatle fans, we're not talking to you.
The Beatles are the basis of most rock music, and it's wrong for them to not be on Itunes.
I can see emi's point though with the theft rampant in the music industry.

 

[SLBear]

You Are Right On

Apple needs to sell music encoded at applelossless quality. The Beatles, I was 10 years old when they made it big. They are old enough to be the grandparents of the kids today who are buying most of the music. Their stuff is good but very dated.

I got the chance to listen to the Beatles 2009 remasters on CD and the bought the USB Green Apple version. There is an unbelievable difference in the sound. For those who don't know, the USB is FLAC and is also 24 BIT, as the CDs are 16 BIT. Compressing them to iTunes store quality would be pointless. I also have the original CDs when the first came out in the late 80's and a few vinyls. If you're going to go digital Beatles, go lossless. XLD is a great way to transform FLAC to ALAC it is so much better than using iTunes for ripping CDs as well. The Beatles absolutely come to life with the Remasters. I'm living my childhood over in vivid color.

 

[kallisti]

And no I do not own all of the Beatles Albums and no, they are not readily available.

The entire Beatles catalog was remastered last year. Each album sounds amazing. One click away on Amazon. How is that not readily available?

 

[furi0usbee]

They [The Beatles] are old enough to be the grandparents of the kids today who are buying most of the music. Their stuff is good but very dated.

Dated? Go back and listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, in that order. Artistic genius is artistic genius, whether it was Bach, Shakespeare, or The Beatles. Those three albums, released back to back to back (1965-1967) showcase the largest leap of musical creativity and sound. I guess it depends on what your definition of "dated" means.

 

[DaveGee]

February 7th 2064 AP Newswire.... On the 100th anniversary of the Beatles landing in the U.S. rumors are still kicking up about the bands song catalog being made available in Apples iTunes music service. When asked for comment from web surfers far and wide... the most off response was... "who?", meanwhile the EMI music label only furnished us with "we just don't feel the time is right". The good news for those fans still alive who listened to the rock band.. in another 50 years the entire catalog MAY become public domain unless the corporations top executives who have officially replaced almost all of the formally elected officials here in the US and in many countries abroad decide to extend it out for another 200 years.... Something industry insiders are all expecting to happen.

For those that don't remember ... it was argued by high profile corporations that bribing elected officials was getting far too expensive and proceeded to ''convince'' the supreme court to do away with the 'middle man' - in this case those pesky and sometimes uncooperative congressman and senators and simply install high-level executives into the congressional and senatorial seats. This single move all but destroyed the now unnecessary lobbyists. In the end it was WIN WIN WIN for everyone, except perhaps the public and those out of work lobbyists but who cares it's not like they'd ever be able to do anything about it.

In somewhat related news, the notorious DVD John was publicly executed today on lawn of the White House. When the president was questioned about this act the response was "I don't give a rats ass if we outlawed executions or not! What HOLLYWOOD WANTS... HOLLYWOOD GETS... I can't possibly make it any more clear than that!"

 

[Saladinos]

I was thinking about this the other day. It's pretty weird how it's EMI (you know, the first one to jump on board the DRM-free train? AKA the label in deep financial trouble). I would have thought they'd want to make the extra cash.

 

[SolRayz]

Whatever...just torrent until EMI gets their **** together...

 

[macjonny1]

Dated? Go back and listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, in that order. Artistic genius is artistic genius, whether it was Bach, Shakespeare, or The Beatles. Those three albums, released back to back to back (1965-1967) showcase the largest leap of musical creativity and sound. I guess it depends on what your definition of "dated" means.

Seriously! Dated is what the music being released today by these top 40 artists will sound like in just a few years. The Beatles are timeless. I was born after the Beatles released their last album but their music sounds just as good today as it did 40+ years ago. How many bands around today will be able to compare to that.

 

[beegee225]

Let's move on...

Someday the Beatles music holders are going to realize just how much money they've lost not taking advantage of the iTunes platform and delivery system. I'm old enough to remember the group when it was new, but there is so much great new music out there this day and age, I've hardly listened to them and their songs are just gathering dust on my hard drive backup.

 

[pdjudd]

I get your point. But as an artist sometimes you don't want those singles sold separately. Pink Floyd just won a legal case against their record company. They don't want single songs sold as most of their albums are meant to be digested in their entirety. Sgt Pepper and the White album never had released singles the time they were originally released so if the artist (not label) doesn't want this, I support the artists. Hits collections are a different animal.

Except there is no evidence that this is the case here - Nobody representing any of the Beatles or EMI for that matter have ever indicated that the reason that digital tracks are not for sale has anything to do with artistic views about maintaining a complete work. Heck the comments from Paul McCartney indicate the opposite, he would love to sell the music on iTunes (after all a sale is a sale). Not to mention that pretty much all of the Beatles Solo work is available as individual tracks in iTunes.

And the lack of singles in the White Album or Sgt. Pepper's Albums is not relevant - songs from both of those albums have been available on greatest hit's compilations. Not to mention that the elements of music sales is not the same when these Albums were first sold. Arguments from back then don't necessarily apply.

Every word we have been hearing is that the only holdout appears to be EMI - and their reasons are business related (after all the Beatles catalog is their crown jewel) and not artistic

 

[oldMac]

Lost Generation

EMI needs to bite the bullet. By not being on iTunes, they've already lost an entire generation of potential buyers. Ask a kid today if he likes the Beatles. (The who?!?)

To the new generation of listeners, if it doesn't exist on iTunes - it doesn't exist.

Maybe having that *pause* when the Beatles "weren't available" will ultimately be good for them - who knows. But I suspect that they dragged this out a bit too long and it will ultimately hurt them.

 

[pdjudd]

The entire Beatles catalog was remastered last year. Each album sounds amazing. One click away on Amazon. How is that not readily available?

Readily available means on demand. That means no shipping and having to wait for it to ship. Having to wait several business days to get a physical product is not "readily available" when if it was available digitally I could download it in 15 minutes.

And that is 24 hours a day even.

 

[Amiga2000HD]

Readily available means on demand. That means no shipping and having to wait for it to ship. Having to wait several business days to get a physical product is not "readily available" when if it was available digitally I could download it in 15 minutes.

And that is 24 hours a day even.

Are you serious?

 

[MacCurry]

EMI has messed up with The Beatles since day 1. During the 1960s, EMI was cheap on providing proper recording tools & facilities. The EMI studios at Abbey Road were cold, uncomfortable and EMI never provided food & drink for The Beatles. The Beatles had their food catered in and hid liquor around the studio. They never liked corporate EMI, but were bound by contract and they liked George Martin (who had his own AIR studio) and Norman Smith & Geoff Emerick (recording engineers). In the late 1970s, EMI released compilations, the Hollywood Bowl Live, and stereo versions of the original albums. The Beatles themselves were unhappy with this and John Lennon even offered to do new artwork for the compilations which EMI didn't respond.

It took EMI decades to settle on shorting the royalties to The Beatles and doing the remastering. Now, we may wait long for the iTunes. If EMI goes broke faster, then we may see it soon.

 

[ULFoaf]

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.

As a former small town resident, I entirely relate to what you say on availability. CD clutter isn't always attractive, but it is good to have a backup of ripped music. I rarely play CDs, and rarely buy them, though my wife still mixes CD for her car. There are few albums where I really love more than 50% tracks. These are the reasons I am a pretty loyal iTunes customer.

 

[awesomebase]

Dated.

Dated? Go back and listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, in that order. Artistic genius is artistic genius, whether it was Bach, Shakespeare, or The Beatles. Those three albums, released back to back to back (1965-1967) showcase the largest leap of musical creativity and sound. I guess it depends on what your definition of "dated" means.

I'll agree with the original poster. Yes, the Beatles are "dated". It doesn't matter about artistic genius... look at the first transistor-based processors. They were absolutely amazing in terms of what they did for computers, but you don't see people at NewEgg and Fry's lining up trying to order one.
Fact is EMI missed the boat on this by almost 5 years already... nobody cares and it is doubtful that releasing the Beatles library on iTunes is going to substantially add to their bottom line. There is only so much that current Beatles fans are going to get that they haven't already gotten and people 25 years younger than me aren't going to be buying them in great amounts. That is what "dated" means... you're assuming that kids that listen to music today actually think of "quality" (i.e. artistic genius) as a factor... if that meant anything, you wouldn't see the likes of just about everyone in the top 10 (think Lady GaGa, etc.) that go by an incredibly formulaic mass-production of cra**y feel-good edgy music with lyrics that just push the sexual envelope in what they can get away with saying...

 

[aarond12]

I guess I wasn't clear on my posting. A majority of people in a blind test couldn't tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and the original CD. The younger listeners in the test actually preferred MP3 to CD. (Why? I have no idea.)

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/65729/blind-test-of-mp3-vs-wav-on-high-end-equipment/75

(This link is a forum post that links to several source articles.)

I am completely aware that FLAC is lossless compression. My point of bumping the frequency from 44.1kHz to 96kHz is for the increased frequency response.

My ear, as good as it is, cannot discern the difference in "pop" or "rock" music when going from 16 to 24 bits. However, I can discern the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz. To me, it's like someone is taking cotton out of my ears for the higher frequencies.

That being said, I think 256kbps AAC is very, very good. Unless I'm listening for it, I cannot discern a significant difference between the AAC file and the FLAC file. MP3, yes -- its compression sounds like a watery stream is running in the background, especially at lower bitrates.

If you want a good A/B comparison, Nine Inch Nails (NIN) has several of their songs/collections available in FLAC 96/24 format. It is a sublime listening experience.

BTW: FLAC 96/24 converts nicely to Apple Lossless, and plays on some devices, like the AppleTV over optical. Piped into my Harmon/Kardon amplifier, it's a wonderful listening experience.

-Aaron-

 

[The Sheck]

I haven't heard any of the Beatles or their survivnig spouses say anything publicly about the 'sanctity of the album,' etc. So I'm not sure that's the issue with Apple.

It's probably EMI wants to charge more than $1.29 a track, and Apple said no. Maybe it's something like $1.49 or (god forbid) $1.99, but the individual albums will be $11.99 or higher. (Yes, everyone has Beatles albums, I know. How many of them know how to rip a CD into itunes? How many of them know how to get the optimum quality files from ripping? There are people out there getting used to .mp3s still. How do you think they're going to handle a term like FLAC or Apple Lossless?)

This unfortunately would set a precedent for other labels/artists to charge those fees, which is the real reason Apple is holding out. Whatever digital store the Beatles end up on they're going to sell a lot of files. How easy is it for a label like Warners to say something like 'We want the Rolling Stones catalog sold at $1.49 or higher. They're just as important musically and culturally as the Beatles." It's a slippery slope from here to there. This argument is going to be revisited over the years as album sales decline more and more, and the overall revenue from recorded music drops.