Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the other major band that has held out from itunes, AC DC?

Is their reasoning the same as Beatles or do older bands have another issue?
From what I've read...

Metallica held out until 2006, over the issue of single-song sales.

Led Zeppelin let one album ("Mothership") into iTunes in 2007, adding other albums only later.

Radiohead held out until 2008, again because of single-song sales.

Garth Brooks held out because he had given Wal-Mart exclusive rights to sell his music. His catalog is still not in iTunes.

Kid Rock is still refusing, telling his fans to steal and share his music instead, although his first album (from another label) is in iTunes.
 
Translation: Apple takes too big a cut. We won't release Beatles on iTunes until we get more.


Don't worry Yoko. I don't have to hold my breath. I downloaded all the Beatles albums over 10 years ago going back to the Hotline days.
 
Yoko Ono: Just put the *&#% tracks on iTunes. At this point, and for the last 8? years since the beginning of the iTunes store, literally every second that those tracks are not on the iTunes store is costing you money. But the lost opportunity is declining every year. 20 years from now, the baby boomer generation will be dying and the Beatles catalog will be a very niche product. Your time is now to get this out there and sell it or lose out. Even now, releasing the Beatles on iTunes would not be nearly as big an event as it would have been 5 years ago. Everybody would just go "Oh, finally" and move on. It's your choice, Yoko. Do you want the money or not.
 
I'm holding out for a Beatles Reunion Tour.

I think I can sneak a nice recording device in to the venue and post some wicked bootlegs on my Facebook page afterwards.
 
Unless they do something totally epic that redefines what can be done with iTunes LP, then it's too little, too late. I wouldn't buy any music from iTunes that didn't offer something I couldn't get from a less expensive, higher quality CD. All the Beatles songs I care to have have been in my iTunes library for years already.
 
Its my belief that since Michael Jackson purchased the rights to many of the Beatles original collection, the re-masters were made as a means of allowing Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono (mainly) to collect on royalties. So, when you purchase a copy of "Revolver" a good chunk of that money goes to Michael Jackson (now his estate). If you purchase "Anthology" it goes to the actual Beatles (McCartney, Yoko Ono, Ringo and Harrison's estate).

I'm pretty sure that what Michael Jackson owned was just the Beatles catalog, which is the "Sheet Music" or the rights to record their songs. He sold that to Sony a few years ago. The Beatles still retain all the rights to sell their recordings.
 
From what I've read...

Metallica held out until 2006, over the issue of single-song sales.

Led Zeppelin let one album ("Mothership") into iTunes in 2007, adding other albums only later.

Radiohead held out until 2008, again because of single-song sales.

Garth Brooks held out because he had given Wal-Mart exclusive rights to sell his music. His catalog is still not in iTunes.

Kid Rock is still refusing, telling his fans to steal and share his music instead, although his first album (from another label) is in iTunes.

Thanks, never knew there was so many holdouts initially. I think several of them probably were really learning their way initially and as well as the other issues you've mentioned as the main reasons were still wondering if iTunes was just like Napster :)
 
Sales

"John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono claims that there are still hurdles to overcome"

Yoko Ono is getting exactly what she deserves; no iTunes sales.
 
Yoko Oh No !

She is a greedy bitch who squeezes every drop of money she can from her dead husband's talent...something she never had !!
 
Sadly there are old Baby boomers that still think they are the center of the universe. However ask anyone that is 30 or younger (with the exceptions) and they have no idea who the Beatles are or consider them old time classic music that has no meaning today. :eek:

I don't think that's accurate. I'm 24, and I don't know anyone my age who doesn't know who the Beatles are.

Anyone who doesn't know who the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who, and probably about 5 or 10 other classics that I forgot to list are has been living under a rock for their entire life, regardless of their age.
 
I don't think that's accurate. I'm 24, and I don't know anyone my age who doesn't know who the Beatles are.

Anyone who doesn't know who the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who, and probably about 5 or 10 other classics that I forgot to list are has been living under a rock for their entire life, regardless of their age.

Exactly. I just turned 32 and I've been a big fan for as long as I can remember. Good music is good music. Doesn't matter when it was made.
 
Yoko ...

Yoko and Brett Favre should get together ... they both act like goofballs.

The Beatles should have been the first one's in line to move to iTunes ... but no, whine about this and whine about that. I could care less at this point and frankly, the Beatles are just not that important.
 
Dear Yoko

How is the weather on Neptune? I'm wondering because that's where you appear to be from.

It seems licensing digital content is really not that complicated Yoko. Negotiate a price (which I'm sure will be $1.29 per song even though they're only really worth .99 per song), negotiate restrictions (like not allowing Yellow Submarine to be sold on the Belgium iTunes store), and then let the tunes fly digitally.

How hard can it be for a Neptunian?
 
Oh Noes!! If The Beatles aren't on iTunes... then how am I ever going to be able to listen to them?! :eek:

meh
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.