Sidebar Sidebar
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

wouldn't buy albums on iTunes anyway

Although I'm not an audiophile, and I appreciate 128kbs on my iPod to save space (who cares with crappy earphones?), since having heard the crush of 256kbs compared to lossless CD rips, I have to say that I've reversed my earlier stance on downloading from iTunes. I still purchase the odd track here and there. But, whereas before I'd download a whole album, now if I think that there's enough tracks of interest I'll buy the CD and then rip that to my Mac.

So, for the few Beatles tracks worth my time, I'm sure there's a few CDs out there.

Seriously Steve/Apple, if you want iTunes to be taken more seriously, you need to offer top audio quality.
 
Steve, just give up on them. Don't waste your time. You have more important things to worry about.
 
You may not like the Beatles. But, seriously... is there anyone in the US over the age of 16 who has not even 'heard' of The Beatles? Wow! Now that's livin' a sheltered life!

Having said that, It seems completely unnecessary for Apple and The Beatles to reach some agreement. The music has been floating around in Vinyl and CD's for years, and the entire catalog was just remastered and re-released on both Stereo and Mono in CD format... anyone who does like the Beatles is certainly not waiting for their music to become available on iTunes.
 
I know that I brought up The Who, but having thought about it (for about two seconds), I realised that I'd choose Bowie any day.


Or maybe not when it's US crime drama day. A few of them feature The Who tunes.

By the way, The Beatles are not on Spotify either. The Stones are. Rocks Off!!!
 
Since I haven't written anything recently that caused much outrage (or even interest), I have to admit:

I THINK THAT YOKO ONO MADE LENNON WRITE FANTASTIC SONGS (or do covers). In fact, there are at least a dozen songs from Lennon after the band broke up that I just adore. Woman, Working Class Hero, Imagine, Jealous Guy, Isolation, I Found Out, How Do You Sleep?, Mind Games, Starting Over, Stand By Me (cover), Cold Turkey, Grow Old With Me... there you go, the list doesn't even include the obvious anti-war songs or Happy Xmas.

Yoko's OK! :)


EDIT: HEY, SOME COMMENTS MUST HAVE BEEN REMOVED! MY PREVIOUS POST WAS FOLLOWED BY OTHERS'.

EDIT2 : Ah, I think some people said the worst things about Yoko Ono. Those comments were removed.
 
jw02150 said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of the Beatles own the copyrights to their songs. They are paid royalties on the physical product that is sold, like most artists and receive songwriting credit, but they don't own any of it.
 
DTphonehome said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

Yoko Ono… ruining the beatles since 1978!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. First she breaks them up, now she continues the slow screwing of the fans.
 
kernkraft said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

And that's the truth. I've always admired him for not being one of the "conventional" members of the band, have seen him in a couple of movies, and though I can't read a note of music (or play drums), I've always thought of him as a kindred spirit. He always seemed like a lovable shaggy dog tagging along for the fun and to hell with all the "mysticism" crap. Gotta love him for (at least publicly) keeping an arm's length from the whole hoohah.

And he can play the drums!
 
Why the hell did this make frontpage? Does it matter? a huge number of artists arent on itunes because they refuse...its nothing new ffs.

And seriously? The Beatles? I have to tell you as a Brit - nobody give a damn about them. Cant remember the last time I heard one of their songs...I think it was on The Simpsons about 6 years ago...thats how often anyone gives a damn about them.

Do us all a favor - page 2 it...better yet, page 90 it.
 
axual said:
Yoko and Brett Favre should get together ... they both act like goofballs.
Click to expand...

Now there's a marriage made in heaven!

We could chant: Oh No ---Farve ---Oh No ---Farve

But she'd want royalties from the fans in the stands and a cut of the NFL's TV rights, plus she'd demand to sing the Star Spangled Banner at the opening of each home game.

It's enough to make one sick...
 
rmwebs said:
And seriously? The Beatles? I have to tell you as a Brit - nobody give a damn about them. Cant remember the last time I heard one of their songs...I think it was on The Simpsons about 6 years ago...thats how often anyone gives a damn about them.
Click to expand...

Actually, about spotting them on the radio - In the last nine years, I heard them once. It is pretty much the same with Sting.
 
Sadly, I predict that Apple Records will miss the boat. There is still strong interest and Love for The Beatles in the marketplace and an Apple Inc./Beatles deal is a 'magical' match... for now. I think that by the time they catch up to the rest of us, we will shrug and say, 'that's nice.'

Idiots suits run Apple Records and EMI. I wish the the remaining Beatles and the two widows would step and and make this happen.
 
MacKeeperFanMod said:
Sadly, I predict that Apple Records will miss the boat. There is still strong interest and Love for The Beatles in the marketplace and an Apple Inc./Beatles deal is a 'magical' match... for now. I think that by the time they catch up to the rest of us, we will shrug and say, 'that's nice.'
Click to expand...
It's a shame because the Beatles were innovators. Being the last one into the boat instead of the first one just isn't the Beatles way.

I understand why some artists have not wanted their music to be distributed one song at a time, either because they thought of their albums as single artistic presentation or because they feared the hits would sell and the rest would not. But neither of these really applies to the Beatles. Few songs from their albums needed to be "presented" in a certain order and played an album at a time, even if fans got used to hearing them that way. Even Sgt. Pepper with its bookend intro and reprise was just a collection of songs that were individually good. Also, the Beatles albums have been regrouped and reordered (Anthologies, "1", U.S. vs. U.K. albums) and remixed (Love), more reasons that individual song sales should not be an issue.

It's probably just a matter of money and control.
 
If there is still a dispute over the Apple name it's pretty funny, because McCartney uses as a Mac, and there's little doubt the others do too.
 
My GFs daughter is 16 and recently the "discovered" the Beatles. She absolutely loves them. Her favorite Beatles music is their earlier stuff, especially Beatles '65. I have everything they ever recorded, including all of the rare studio out takes that were sneaked out of Apple Records in the early 1980s. She now has a copy of my entire Beatles collection. I think the Beatles catalog on iTunes would expose their music to a whole new audience. MC
 
b166er said:
Curse you, Ono, you've jipped us once again!
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't know about that. All of Lennon's post-Beatles music is available.

I don't know what they could possibly be holding out for though. More money? How much money could they need at this point? Why don't they just give people the music for ****'s sake?!
 
Does it matter? Is there really anyone who doesn't have access to the Beatles' stuff. I can't stand their music and they've even found their way onto my library.
 
satcomer said:
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:
Click to expand...

My kids would disagree. They are 8, 10, and 11.
OGDaniel said:
Meh, I don't know about that. All of Lennon's post-Beatles music is available.

I don't know what they could possibly be holding out for though. More money? How much money could they need at this point? Why don't they just give people the music for ****'s sake?!
Click to expand...

Really?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Beatles/e/B000APTK6K/ref=sr_tc_tag_2?qid=1281151148&sr=8-2-ent
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Doctor Q said:
I understand why some artists have not wanted their music to be distributed one song at a time, either because they thought of their albums as single artistic presentation or because they feared the hits would sell and the rest would not. But neither of these really applies to the Beatles. Few songs from their albums needed to be "presented" in a certain order and played an album at a time, even if fans got used to hearing them that way. Even Sgt. Pepper with its bookend intro and reprise was just a collection of songs that were individually good. Also, the Beatles albums have been regrouped and reordered (Anthologies, "1", U.S. vs. U.K. albums) and remixed (Love), more reasons that individual song sales should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
Especially since some of their best material originally was only released as singles. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back