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.
Rumors of The Beatles Coming to iTunes Renewed Yet Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The last time I bought anything Beatles related was when I had an operating turntable. I think I have exactly 1 of their albums in mp3 format.
It would be nice to pull digitally remastered versions of their stuff directly from iTunes instead of having to buy albums and transcode myself. I miss not being able to play their stuff from time to time.
My guess, and I seem to be going against the grain here, is that I think this will happen. It fits with the rumors that apple is doing some "album-related" changes. I know that's one of the things the Beatles did best, produce entire albums that were meant to be experienced as a whole. They were not alone, many artists "back in the day" used to do that (Yes, Pink Floyd, etc). It isn't something anyone cares about these days, but back when it actually did matter.
It's possible that one of the stumbling blocks has been a lack of a way to make entire album sales more appealing. If Apple has done something about that, I for one would pick up remastered Beatles albums, and hope they've done something similar for a few other groups as well.
It would be nice to pull digitally remastered versions of their stuff directly from iTunes instead of having to buy albums and transcode myself. I miss not being able to play their stuff from time to time.
My guess, and I seem to be going against the grain here, is that I think this will happen. It fits with the rumors that apple is doing some "album-related" changes. I know that's one of the things the Beatles did best, produce entire albums that were meant to be experienced as a whole. They were not alone, many artists "back in the day" used to do that (Yes, Pink Floyd, etc). It isn't something anyone cares about these days, but back when it actually did matter.
It's possible that one of the stumbling blocks has been a lack of a way to make entire album sales more appealing. If Apple has done something about that, I for one would pick up remastered Beatles albums, and hope they've done something similar for a few other groups as well.
And as far as the purported "cocktail" from Apple folks might want to check this out :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Cocktail_Party
Makes sense that Job's would relate to this.
And after the lawsuits were all settled Apple,Inc. owns the rights to the term "Apple" licensing it to EMI records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Cocktail_Party
Makes sense that Job's would relate to this.
And after the lawsuits were all settled Apple,Inc. owns the rights to the term "Apple" licensing it to EMI records.
I think it refers to the Beatles song that goes "number 9, number 9, number 9..."
According to Wikipedia, Michael Jackson and Sony own the publishing rights to most of the Beatles catalog (all but 4 of the Lennon-McCartney titles which are owned by EMI).
Apple publishing owns the Harrison-Starr titles.
Hence, I don't understand this MacRumors report.
A. There's no mention of Sony or Jackson's estate which owns the bulk of the music.
B. Who cares what EMI is planning on Sept. 9th, they only own rights to 4 songs.
It must be a dull news day if all MacRumors has got is this crap and a bunch of fake iTunes screen shots! The credibility of this site is really poor sometimes.
Don't mistake publishing rights with recording rights. EMI/Apple Corp has the rights to the song recordings as performed by the Beatles. MJ's estate/Sony own the rights to the songs (lyrics and music).
Meh ... no doubt.
I'll believe it when I see it. And even then, I won't buy squat from the Beatles.
I'll believe it when I see it. And even then, I won't buy squat from the Beatles.
Yes, ATV (Sony and Michael Jackson) own the publishing rights, but Apple Corp (not Company) owns the rights to the recordings. What has been holding up the releases to iTines has been Apple Corp. This is what on-going negotiation has been about.
According to Wikipedia, Michael Jackson and Sony own the publishing rights to most of the Beatles catalog (all but 4 of the Lennon-McCartney titles which are owned by EMI).
Apple publishing owns the Harrison-Starr titles.
Hence, I don't understand this MacRumors report.
A. There's no mention of Sony or Jackson's estate which owns the bulk of the music.
B. Who cares what EMI is planning on Sept. 9th, they only own rights to 4 songs.
It must be a dull news day if all MacRumors has got is this crap and a bunch of fake iTunes screen shots! The credibility of this site is really poor sometimes.
Here's the real deal, once and for all, on the Sony/ATV/Jackson-Beatles thing:
MJ's estate/Sony/ATV own the publishing rights for the SONGS. If you want to perform 'All You Need Is Love' at a wedding, the royalites from that go to MJ/Sony/ATV. Similarly, if you want to cover the song for a commercial.
The original master recordings do NOT belong to MJ/Sony/ATV; they belong to EMI/Apple. They can do what they want with those master recordings. If you want to play a Beatles recording on something, you need the permission of EMI/Apple, not MJ/Sony/ATV.
Publishing rights are not the same as ownership of the recordings.
Here's another example; if you want to play a Beethoven piece, the publishing rights are public domain (Beethoven having been dead >50 years), so you can play Beethoven in public without paying anyone royalties. But, if you want to play Deutsche Grammophon's recording of Beethoven Symphony #9, by the Vienna Philharmonic, conducted by Leonard Bernstein, you pay royalties to Deutsche Grammophon, who own the masters.
Edit: Seems I was beaten to the whole 'publishing rights vs. ownership of masters' thing.
the only Beatles-related item that I'm interested in is their remastered discography box-set, and once I have spending money again I'll definitely order it for myself (big Beatles fan here)... but this whole deal with the Beatles music on iTunes is starting to get as old as the Apple tablet rumors that continue to be resurrected, as it seems, almost on a whim. for those in the younger generation whose only concept of music is the garbage at the top of the charts and in the iTunes Store, I doubt that the gem that is the Beatles' discography being added to iTunes is going to affect their musical tastes... maybe I'm just the only one who sees it, but the majority of the current "iTunes" generation has little to no concept of what true musical ability is given the expendable, overly-processed junk in the Top 40 these days, and I can imagine that the first thing they'd think when seeing the title "the Beatles:Rock Band" is "ooo, Rock Band!!" (let it be said, I absolutely hate that game).
the only perk to me of having the Beatles discography on iTunes would be that I'd be able to download album artwork through iTunes for my remastered CD set the day I buy it... otherwise, I couldn't care less. I've never bought a song on iTunes, and have no intention of doing so when I can instead have a lossless, CD-based copy for myself. maybe that's becoming the old-fashioned way of thinking, but if that's the case, then I'll happily admit that I'm getting old.
the only perk to me of having the Beatles discography on iTunes would be that I'd be able to download album artwork through iTunes for my remastered CD set the day I buy it... otherwise, I couldn't care less. I've never bought a song on iTunes, and have no intention of doing so when I can instead have a lossless, CD-based copy for myself. maybe that's becoming the old-fashioned way of thinking, but if that's the case, then I'll happily admit that I'm getting old
.
My dad introduced me to some albums in which all the songs tell a story or center around a single theme; artists like Harry Nilson, Gordon Lightfoot, and I think The Moody Blues. I actually really like those kind of albums. They really stand out, but I guess they aren't widely listened to what with society being riddled with A.D.D.
...Turn up your sarcas-o-meter...
You obviously didn't catch the irony in what I said and why I said it.
<face/palm>
Marshall Bruce Mathers the 3rd. Not the chocolate.
...and it's EMINEM people. With an I. If we're going to debate, let's do it intelligently. I don't believe 3 people all got that wrong.
I've had The Beatles on iTunes forever.
I'm not alone. Both parties may have squandered an otherwise lucrative deal.
I'm not alone. Both parties may have squandered an otherwise lucrative deal.
Does anyone care?
The beatles are pretty old news. Does anyone really care if they're on iTunes or not?
The beatles are pretty old news. Does anyone really care if they're on iTunes or not?
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that the current versions of their CD catalog was mastered in 1987, and sound like ****.
the only Beatles-related item that I'm interested in is their remastered discography box-set, and once I have spending money again I'll definitely order it for myself (big Beatles fan here)... but this whole deal with the Beatles music on iTunes is starting to get as old as the Apple tablet rumors that continue to be resurrected, as it seems, almost on a whim. for those in the younger generation whose only concept of music is the garbage at the top of the charts and in the iTunes Store, I doubt that the gem that is the Beatles' discography being added to iTunes is going to affect their musical tastes... maybe I'm just the only one who sees it, but the majority of the current "iTunes" generation has little to no concept of what true musical ability is given the expendable, overly-processed junk in the Top 40 these days, and I can imagine that the first thing they'd think when seeing the title "the Beatles:Rock Band" is "ooo, Rock Band!!" (let it be said, I absolutely hate that game).
the only perk to me of having the Beatles discography on iTunes would be that I'd be able to download album artwork through iTunes for my remastered CD set the day I buy it... otherwise, I couldn't care less. I've never bought a song on iTunes, and have no intention of doing so when I can instead have a lossless, CD-based copy for myself. maybe that's becoming the old-fashioned way of thinking, but if that's the case, then I'll happily admit that I'm getting old
Maybe, for the iTunes release, they'll take the catalog and add Auto Tune filters to every song... then the kiddies would eat it up!
I've pre-ordered the Beatles Rock Band and will be playing it all night. Already have all the CD's in my iTunes library. I'd need some compelling reason to buy anything else (like the remastered version being that much better). However the preripped collection in iTunes, thanks but I'm not interested in it. I'm sure it would sell a lot though.
I really don't understand why bands hesitate to put their music up on iTunes. Why would you want to limit your music sales, especially in a retailer that is seller massive amounts of music? Do they not think they could make a lot more money by offering their music in every form possible?
The remastered versions should be that much better... especially the original Mono mixes. That right there should be the gold standard (one hopes). Remember, John and Paul spent a ton of time, and were a large part of the final mixing process with the mono mixes. The stereo mixes for most of the albums were done at a later time and not a ton of thought (early technology) was put into it, thus the muddy sounding CDs that have been available.
I can't wait.
It's likely not the bands who hesitate, it is the record labels. They don't like Apple controlling as much as they currently do.
It seems to line up, what with the 09.09.09 date, Rock Band game, and the new remasters, and I sure do wish they'd get it over and done with so we can move on to more important rumors.
I've already got all the Beatles I need (pretty much everything), but once I hear how much better the new editions sound, I'll be wanting the box set. Can't imagine buying iTunes versions, but I guess it'll be great that they can finally close the book on this chapter.
I've already got all the Beatles I need (pretty much everything), but once I hear how much better the new editions sound, I'll be wanting the box set. Can't imagine buying iTunes versions, but I guess it'll be great that they can finally close the book on this chapter.
9/9/09 was chosen by Harmonix cuz of Revolution #9. EMI chose to make it a cross-promotion and decided to release the CD's on the same date.
As late as June's E3, there was no deal. It's pretty freshly stricken if true. McCartney said there that EMI *cue Sex Pistols song* has been the hangup. Funny thing is that EMI was the first on-board with DRM-free itunes songs, weren't they?
As late as June's E3, there was no deal. It's pretty freshly stricken if true. McCartney said there that EMI *cue Sex Pistols song* has been the hangup. Funny thing is that EMI was the first on-board with DRM-free itunes songs, weren't they?
Beatles and iTunes
I'm wondering if the rumored "new format" that Apple has been working on (selling albums with liners, photos, videos as a bundle) won't appear on 9.9.9 with the Beatles content as the opening releases of the format? The Beatles hesitation on selling thru digital music channels is that they want their albums to be purchased in their entirety. They are one of the few music acts around whose albums would be worthy of this format, as each holds up very well even today with high quality consistency across tracks. Oh and guess what the new remasters have ... new liners, photos, videos etc.
I'm wondering if the rumored "new format" that Apple has been working on (selling albums with liners, photos, videos as a bundle) won't appear on 9.9.9 with the Beatles content as the opening releases of the format? The Beatles hesitation on selling thru digital music channels is that they want their albums to be purchased in their entirety. They are one of the few music acts around whose albums would be worthy of this format, as each holds up very well even today with high quality consistency across tracks. Oh and guess what the new remasters have ... new liners, photos, videos etc.