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.
The Beatles and Apple Still Unable to Reach iTunes Distribution Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
my prediction on the holdup:
I bet Apple wants it available as individual tracks and I bet Apple Corps wants everything sold as "Album Only" AND for a premium.
I think Apple Corps knows this will be bigger than Jesus
and are holding out for as much as they can get.
I bet Apple wants it available as individual tracks and I bet Apple Corps wants everything sold as "Album Only" AND for a premium.
I think Apple Corps knows this will be bigger than Jesus
and are holding out for as much as they can get.
She is of Japanese heritage, She lives in NYC (I think) and I would be willing to bet she is vegetarian. Depending on when she stopped auto medicating with "Herbal Pharmaceuticals", she has a very good shot at hitting 100 and 110 is not out of the question.
Seriously, I would rather own The Beatles albums in CD form with digipacks than just a digital download. That collection belongs out in the room to see.
Alternatively the vinyl form with digital copies. They released Abbey Road on vinyl recently and it's a shame they didn't include a CD with it. Any vinyl release these days should include the CD. Record companies don't get it. Beyond the market of single song downloads, are those who appreciate complete albums as an art form. Make those products more desirable for the collector. That niche market will go away if it gets neglected or burned by poorly thought out products.
Speaking of Abbey Road, I'm considering reimporting that album and joining several tracks. Has anyone else done this? Many of the songs blend into each other and on random play it seems like these should just be one track really. I hate the thought of long name of that track though.
Alternatively the vinyl form with digital copies. They released Abbey Road on vinyl recently and it's a shame they didn't include a CD with it. Any vinyl release these days should include the CD. Record companies don't get it. Beyond the market of single song downloads, are those who appreciate complete albums as an art form. Make those products more desirable for the collector. That niche market will go away if it gets neglected or burned by poorly thought out products.
Speaking of Abbey Road, I'm considering reimporting that album and joining several tracks. Has anyone else done this? Many of the songs blend into each other and on random play it seems like these should just be one track really. I hate the thought of long name of that track though.
Amazon right now has the mono set for cheaper than the stereo. Still pricey, but definitely worth it.
I think it was Dhani Harrison a few years back who hinted that the problem was that Apple charges 99 cents a track for music, and the Beatles contingency wanted to charge more. The rumor was at least $1.99 per individual song. No idea on album costs, but I would imagine those would be higher as well.
Someone mentioned earlier that the beatles.com was offering digital downloads in October. While that is true, it's for the label Apple Records, and won't include Beatles songs. Just Badfinger, James Taylor, etc. getting the same remastering treatment.
DAMMIT YOKO
Ruined the beatles the first time around, now she's doin it again!!!
Least favorite person of the day.
Ruined the beatles the first time around, now she's doin it again!!!
Least favorite person of the day.
my prediction on the holdup:
I bet Apple wants it available as individual tracks and I bet Apple Corps wants everything sold as "Album Only" AND for a premium.
I think Apple Corps knows this will be bigger than Jesus
That's an interesting take on it. I imagine that Beatles fans would buy entire albums anyway and those who purchase singles would gravitate to "greatest hits" releases. They could offer original albums as album only and greatest hits from releases over the years with options of purchasing single tracks.
I actually meant to say that if you are so protective about The Beatles' interest, you might remember their battle against Apple Computers regarding the name 'Apple'. In the end, The Beatles lost and I'm not sure that if you put Yoko Ono, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Steve Jobs into a room, what the biggest argument would be about but it might be just about this or the cut that Apple gets after each track. Or the cut of EMI, McCartney or Yoko Ono. (It would be nice to have Jackson in that room, too - you know the connection...)
Also, let's not forget that it's not the surviving members of The Beatles that hold the majority interest in the franchise. A few months ago, McCartney blamed EMI. EMI then blamed Apple for demanding too much and giving too little in return.
Anyway, the only clean one in this story is Ringo. He probably doesn't even realise that they split up. He might be thinking that they got somebody, who can actually play the drums.
Yes, I did that so I can listen to the second side of AR together as a unit.
(I originally did this ten or more years ago with DSotM and several live albums, back when many MP3 players couldn't play gapless albums correctly.)
If it helps, I named that specific track: "Abbey Road - Side 2".
Which makes me wonder why Amazon MP3 store wouldn't have individual Beatles tracks, because IIRC they do $1.99 track pricing now.
Angus Young has said that because their original contracts didn't specify royalties for digital downloads (and how could it when they hadn't been invented yet?), they would make basically nothing from MP3/AAC sales while their record company stood to make all of the profits. Their solution was to refuse to license any digital downloads. Most of their albums are now priced around $10, and they are one of the highest grossing artists based on physical album sales. Inside that schoolboy uniform lurks one savvy businessman.
What exactly mystifies you? That there are people in the world who don't share your demand for 'high quality'? You seem to have hit the nail on the head - people pay good money for convenience. That's sort of the definition of internet shopping isn't it?
Let's be real here...
Who cares? If you are a Beatle fan then you ALREADY have there music. Simple as that. I really don't see the big deal. It's not like there music is ONLY on vinyl and has NEVER been released on cd. Such a big deal over nothing.
Who cares? If you are a Beatle fan then you ALREADY have there music. Simple as that. I really don't see the big deal. It's not like there music is ONLY on vinyl and has NEVER been released on cd. Such a big deal over nothing.
Too bad the dimwits managing beatles estate don't realize tons of people get beatles music for free because they can't find it on iTunes.
At this rate, Beatles music will become public / free, before they make any money from the most popular music store around.
At this rate, Beatles music will become public / free, before they make any money from the most popular music store around.
I've no doubt that's true! Given they're quite different to the Beatles in that new albums are still being produced it's surprising that at least the very latest productions aren't being released under some new contracts which do incorporate a digital component.
I wasn't talking about a court room. Cases are not about parties leaving the court room happy. There might be still a lot of anger against all another - that was my point.
They get new fans all the time. Newer generations are always discovering older music. That's what makes it "classic".