Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

Hey, let's not leave out "Tommy" by The Who! Also, "Who's Next," a very excellent album, was originally supposed to be a concept album.

But back to The Beatles: Beatles fans will buy the newly remastered recordings when they come out, or otherwise obtain them. The Beatles and Apple Inc. are the ones missing out on reaching new fans by not having their songs available on iTunes.
 
I admit to owning ZERO of their music, but this is something that has just been interesting to play out.

I tried to ask a friend if he was going to CA on 09/09/09 to work, and he's not talking.... guess i'll know if i get a picture emailed to me huh? ;)
 
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?

I think some bands do not prefer the iTunes method of selling individual songs. They consider their album one piece of work. AC/DC Angus Young said "We don't make singles, we make albums. Other groups and artist think this same way. The piecemeal method of only buying one or two songs ruins the intergreity of the whole album experience.

Also it could be that if someone buy a whole album, the artist makes more money.
 
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. :(

i was reading this entire thread to see if someone mentioned Jackson's ownership of the discography. with him (Jackson) out of the way, maybe Joe and the lawyers are liquidating MJ's assets. maybe this rumor will finally come to fruition.


EDIT: i read the posts explaining the difference in ownership (i am now more knowledgeable)
 
I think some bands do not prefer the iTunes method of selling individual songs. They consider their album one piece of work. AC/DC Angus Young said "We don't make singles, we make albums. Other groups and artist think this same way. The piecemeal method of only buying one or two songs ruins the intergreity of the whole album experience.

Also it could be that if someone buy a whole album, the artist makes more money.

there's lots of songs on itunes already that are available "album only". sometimes i don't mind and sometimes it pisses me off.

Ex: "Regina Spector (sp?) - The Call" is available only on the soundtrack to Narnia II and i sure as hell don't want that album.
 
These "irrelevant" Beatles are now the #2 best selling artist of this decade (behind Emenem). I predict that after the remasters and upcoming downloads, they just might become #1.

After Micheal Jackson sales practically melted down the iTunes store for a while... you might want to check on those stats when the revised count comes out. Probably won't displace the top two but may jump on the decade's top 10 seller chart when wasn't listed 3 months ago.

Goes in part to show in part there is a role here in that folks are buying what suggested should buy.


And the Beatles stuff will drop more money on his estate too.
 
It would be really cool if they get a ton of Beatles singles on iTunes. The albums are great, but there are some really awesome Beatles songs that weren't on albums that not many people have really heard of because of that.
 
...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 keep posting tired. Sorry :eek:

But I've got a 10 day holiday once Friday's over with so the brain should be in gear for weekend (depending on beer consumption of course)
 
Where is AC / DC

beatles? who is that?

seriously that is the kind of music where I would rather buy the CD set than a lower quality AAC. And I would want the box and album art and all that. And of course the vinyl as long as my vinyl player still works....

How about adding some music that people born after 1970 will actually want to purchase?

Does anyone even still listen to th Beatles by choice? The music is everywhere already (sountracks, etc..)
 
How about adding some music that people born after 1970 will actually want to purchase?

Does anyone even still listen to th Beatles by choice? The music is everywhere already (sountracks, etc..)
I noticed today in the iTunes Store that there's a [playlistId=323298114]new album of Bing Crosby music[/playlistId], even though he died in the 70s. Popular artists stay popular longer than you might think.
 
How is this stupid??? Seriously, without The Beatles, music wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today, yet people like you act as if The Beatles are some insignificant band.

Sure, most fans of The Beatles will purchase the CDs, but what about people my age (15-20) or even younger, who haven't been exposed to The Beatles? They're not going to go spend $200 on the remastered CDs. They might want a few tracks, and they'll build from there.

The Beatles will eventually come to iTunes, and I look forward to that day, even though I already have pre-ordered the remasters. I look forward to the day when people my age learn what real music is.

Don

15-20 year olds don't buy music anyway, they steal it
 
It would be really interesting if Apple comes out with limited edition of Beatles iPod.

Yellow (Submarine)

Red (Sgt. Pepper's)

Etc.
 
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.

Thanks for the clarification! However, I don't think that changes the fact that the MacRumors "rumor" is rediculous and really calls into question the credibility of any of the stories they publish. How anyone can draw any correlation to WTF EMI is doing on Sept. 9th and an iTunes/Beatles announcement is beyond me! I've lost a lot of faith in any "rumor" published on this site. At least I've learned something from this otherwise dreadful waste of bandwidth.
 
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.
.

Actually, if you play a Beatles song in a public performance, John (estate) and Paul do get paid. That's because there is the publisher's share as well as the writer's share. Sony/ATV has the control though as ATV/Northern Songs/Dick James yada yada owns the publisher's share and has administration rights.

Paul gets to petition to get his publishing rights back in 9 years rolling along through 17 years.

And I can say with absolute certainty there will be no Beatles downloads available on 9/9/2009 except for those available through Rock Band. Yes, more songs...
 
The Beatles on iTunes is a rumour that, for all the background behind it, has gone on for a bit too long. This is not only down to the stance of Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the Lennons, the Harrisons etc. but also due to the frenzy which Apple fans whip up every time September rolls around. So no individual is to blame.

My position is this:

I have a lot of Beatles music on my laptop, not via CDs. I, personally, do not buy CDs any more. All of my music is purchased digitally. If there is an artist or a track which is not on iTunes, I download it where and when I can. If/when The Beatles do come out on iTunes, I will buy it.

I am a huge fan of their music (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band being my favourite and, to me, the pinnacle of their collaborative career) and, whether you like it or not, they were hugely influential on much of today's bands and artists. This doesn't make them the all-time greatest band ever (although I certainly think they could qualify for that title), so I am happy to accept other people's views on that.

However, partly due to my obsessive compulsive nature, I like my laptop to have a tidy music database, not scattered about in different locations. The Beatles on iTunes will make it a lot more organised for me (especially with the rumoured "Cocktail" information as well), and I will feel better for purchasing their music legally online. I already feel bad for having it illegally now, and yes, I know I could get it with the remastered CDs (the remastered aspect is also the other reason to get them - my current tracks are of regular quality), but it is extra clutter which I don't need, legal or not. That's just not the way I buy music any more. Nor would I want to rip it from another person's CDs (partly because I haven't really got any friends or family who would get them).

I will continue to find other, obscure tracks illegally instead of buying a compilation CD with 12 other tracks that I don't want, with money that I don't have right now, just to get that one track, until they go on iTunes. I like music, you understand, but I am not trying to be a pirate of any sort. I am perfectly willing to wait for both the money to come into my account and for the track to appear.

Does this make me a pirate? In my opinion, no, but in the eyes of the record labels, probably yes, to which I can only apologise. I hope somebody agrees with me.

P.S. By the way, the 9/9/09 date refers not only to the "Number nine, number nine, number nine..." on Revolution #9, but could also refer to the track "One After 909" on the Let It Be album.
 
I think some artists should do the album only thing including the Beatles. However the incentive should be list it at 6.99 or 7.99. Give the customer some value. After all for a few dollars more (over the 9.99 price) it's always better to get the CD with perfect audio, packaging and you don't lose it if your HD crashes.
 
Borrrrrrinnnggggg!

Oh Great...

Another "You say yes. I say no. You say stop. And I say go, go, gooooooo... ooohhhh. Oh no. I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hellooo~Ooo~Ooo. Helllllloooooo." article. :D;):cool:
 
Here's my "three day wild guess" on what happens on 9 September 2009:

We will FINALLY see the Beatles catalog--now in the cleaned-up, remastered form--come to the iTunes Store. Downloadable as full albums only, there will be two versions of each remastered album available: one only in iTunes Plus audio format, one not only with the music but with extensive liner notes and artwork formatted using Apple's new "Cocktail" technology. The liner note version will be fully compatible with the iPod touch upgraded to the iPhone 3.1 software and with my rumored 7G iPod classic, which will use a new, 16:10 widescreen aspect ratio display.
 
Beatles Coming to Starbucks

Monday we got our new promtional book which listed four Beatles albums being released at Starbucks. It explains that Abbey Road Studios spent the last four years restoring and remastering the albums to provide high-tech / top-notch quality.

This will be proof as Starbucks always sells the same CDs in store as they do on http://iTunes.com/Starbucks
 
I'm a Beatles fan, own all their albums and several of them are on vinyl. However, I personally cannot stand ANYTHING they put out before Rubber Soul (or most of Rubber Soul, in fact, aside from Norwegian Wood and In My Life). I just dislike love songs in general, and their first five albums were literally nothing but. I also dislike Sgt. Pepper's a lot - I can understand how it may have been considered 'influential' back then, as many of the recording techniques were a first, but in the end I find it overproduced and in places to be downright cruddy (Lovely Rita, anyone?). However, in saying that, it does have my favourite Beatles track - A Day In The Life. The rest of the album can get shoved away (except maybe Lucy In The Sky...depends on my mood) :) The White Album is hit and miss, some good songs, many mediocre, a few that are downright terrible (Revolution 9, though that's fairly obvious). The one thing I will agree fully with Don over is Revolver. It's clearly not their most "revolutionary" album - that's clearly Sgt Pepper - but it's where they started experimenting more with things that ended up becoming somewhat mainstream for a lot of artists (and my use of revolutionary is purely in technical terms, by no means do I condone the mess that is ultimately contained within Pepper). It's my favourite album, not just by The Beatles but out of every artist I listen to. On their other albums, there are a few tracks here and there that are really outstanding (Come Together and Something on Abbey Road, for example), and they had some great singles (Hey Jude)... I do consider myself a fan and can honestly listen to most of their stuff without being bored, but in saying that I fully understand how somebody simply cannot appreciate their work - a lot of their music really is the stuff that you either love or absolutely despise.

IMHO, there are two kinds of people in this world. Lennon-ers and McCartney-ers.

I find myself to be a lennon-er.

I wonder if M$ people tend to be McCartney-ers.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.