'The Beatles: 1+' Collection Debuts on iTunes With 50 Restored Music Videos

[phrehdd]

1) I am not buying this particular batch of Beatles stuff as I rather, if at all, have the physical media.
2) It is sad if not pathetic to see uneducated comments with respect to the music itself and impact of the group.
3) How amusing it is to see the likes of Amy Winehouse and Lady GaGa doing duets with Tony Bennett who does standards that precede the Beatles. Obviously Amy nor Lady G know as much as some of the self involved posters here on what "older" music means to many or the fact the music stands on its own and is timeless.

 

[PaulMoore]

Anyone else seeing 'not available' when following the iTunes Store link? I am using an iPhone and the US store

 

[ron7624]

Bunch of retired musicians who want more money from music they made and sold years ago…

Disgusting.

Nay, not so! That music takes me back. Their genius is evident in the variety of songs, sounds and implementation that had not been heard of before.
Why is that disgusting. The youth of today, when exposed to it, love their music as much as we did many years ago.

 

[ChrisA]

Bunch of retired musicians who want more money from music they made and sold years ago…

Disgusting.

Retired??? No. Two are dead (is that retirement?), One might be retired we don't know but Paul is defiantly NOT retired.

My opinion about ALL recorded music is that same as yours. People trying to make money off work they did in the past. Only in the 20th century was it even possible. For thousands of years before, they only got paid for live performances. I hope it goes back to the normal way. I think it might as recorded music is so easy to copy it has little value

 

[ChrisA]

Michael Jackson's estate owns it.

Yes I remember that Paul did sell some of his back catalog to MJ but I don't think MJ owed all of it.

In any case I'm sure this is more of historic interest then a money making deal.

 

[phrehdd]

Yes I remember that Paul did sell some of his back catalog to MJ but I don't think MJ owed all of it.

In any case I'm sure this is more of historic interest then a money making deal.

Best most understand is that McCartney told MJ that investing in music and musicals was smart. In turn, MJ bought up the Beatles catalogue from under McCartney's nose. This caused a rift between them. I am sure others here can give some data on this "story" as to whether it is true or not but I have heard it was true.

As for Apple or anyone else, music is nothing more than something to sell and make profit. It is not about the art and promoting it.

 

[malexandria]

Yes I remember that Paul did sell some of his back catalog to MJ but I don't think MJ owed all of it.

In any case I'm sure this is more of historic interest then a money making deal.

That's what I think, I mean they already have hundreds of millions. They probably doing it just to preserve the music in current formats/technology...

 

[ginger neimo]

If anyone really knew the Beatles they would know they are not doing it for the money, and not having the rights to their own music has nothing to do with it. Their music is in demand as if it were not they would be long forgotten. Like John Lennon once said: "For Christs sake we are only a rock band". Or what George Harrison once said- there are better bands out there. The Beatles never put importance on themselves- they did not think they were better than others. They simply enjoying writing songs and doing what they were so good and natural to them, and if along the way they became the biggest thing in music history- well so be it.I have seen these guys in interviews and they are down to earth and quick with a joke. They acknowledge the success that they have achieved- but never brag- unlike some.The Beatles were a complete group- lacking in nothing. I simple love them and I think they are the:
Best
Exciting
Amazing
Talented
Lads
Ever
Seen
and there you have it.... beatles

Enjoy 2016 and be kind to animals.

 

[gnasher729]

Bunch of retired musicians who want more money from music they made and sold years ago…

Disgusting.

If you want the music, you pay for it. If you don't want the music, what the hell are you ranting about?

 

[phrehdd]

You know what's worse than the beatls bashers? People like you.

Not everybody likes hippie radio music from 50 years ago. Deal with it!

Thanks for the laugh. Nobody forces you to listen or buy. Then again, some of us get to enjoy music from various eras which means we have far more music to choose from and enjoy. So please tell us what your favourite music is. I am sure it will stand the test of time.

 

[phrehdd]

Amen! I can't think of any modern act that will still be relevant 10 yrs from now, that alone 20 or 30 yrs. Especially considering how fickle and shallow today's "music fans" are. I've officially turned into my parents,

I had to think about what you said and realized that I listened to music that was before my time as well as what was on the radio. I doubt many youth (other than those that discover and older band they like) realize that music it self doesn't have a real "serve by this date" attached to it. I get to enjoy music from all of the 1900's on up for popular and then of course all sorts of other music. I don't have to wait until the next Justin B comes along.