Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Loads of people, even new generations still like Elvis' songs, even I (26 years old in 3 days time) like his songs. I'm not one to rave over him, then again I never rave over any celebrities really, but I appreciate his music still and I know many people who are well passed his age demographic who do.
You are not alone. He actually had an album come out this year that debuted on the Billboard album charts at number 11. It was number 1 in the UK and number 1 in Australia (just two that I know of). The guy has been dead for 38 years and his estate still makes 50-60 million a year. While he doesn't get the same press from people at Apple or in the media, his music is still very much alive.

That being said, I have been a Beatles fan since I was a kid and have the mono and stereo boxes. You don't have to like the Beatles at the expense of liking Elvis or anyone else.
 
To be honest I agree that they are the most overrated band of all time.

John Lennon is spoken about like he was god, yet he was actually a dick. People make comparisons between him and Steve Jobs, the difference is that away from hardcore Apple fans Jobs gets a rough time over his mistakes. Lennon gets praise all the time.

Also the Beatles weren't the first ones to get a cult following, Elvis had cult following beginning in the 50's, others probably before that but on less of a scale.

Elvis was an entertainer first. One could argue that in 1955-1956 he was actually a force in early rock. However, he either stopped caring about music, or simply wanted to just be an entertainer. I don't think he ever wrote a single song... Buddy Holly picked up where Elvis should have went in 1957 and sadly, his career ended too soon. The Beatles picked up from Holly and the rest was history.

Go back and see how many television households were watching The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in Feb. 1964. Yeah, The Beatles were the first to get a following of that magnitude. Small followings don't count. Come now, they stopped touring in 1966 to focus on studio work. Imagine that today? Beibs tells all his fans he's out of the limelight, going to focus on studio work. LOL.

You may not like them, but to say they are the most overrated? Obviously you don't know much about the band. If you only knew about all the "firsts" the Beatles introduced to pop/rock, especially as it pertains to recording methods/sound/etc.

Go search Google for a list of songs Paul/John wrote for others. We are talking about songs that became hits for others that Paul/John deemed not good enough for Beatles.

I'm not here to defend them. Their catalog speaks for itself. But to say they are the most overrated? That's coming from someone know doesn't know much about them. I don't listen to Metallica, don't like that genre. But that's like me saying they are overrated, when they sold like 120 million records. They suck cause I don't like them.

I don't listen to classical music either, so Beethoven must suck as well!
 



The full music collection of The Beatles will be available on Apple Music and other music streaming services on Christmas Eve, according to a new report from Re/code. The report comes a week after a similar report from Billboard, which said that The Beatles were coming to a streaming service on Christmas Eve but did not specify which one.

thebeatles.png
The only music service that won't have full access to The Beatles' catalog is Pandora, which doesn't do direct deals with music owners. However, Pandora does offer some access to select Beatles songs on its web radio service. Additionally, The Beatles' catalog will also be available on music services' free tiers, unlike artists like Taylor Swift.

The Beatles' catalog originally appeared on iTunes back in 2010, giving Apple exclusive rights to the digital distribution of the famous band's music until 2011. More recently, "The Beatles: +1" collection debuted on iTunes, packaged with remastered versions of hit songs and mini-movies made by the famous quartet.

Update: The Beatles have confirmed their music will be available on Apple Music and eight other streaming music services worldwide on December 24 at 12:01 a.m. local time.

Article Link: The Beatles Are Coming to Apple Music on Christmas Eve
Have my favorite Beatles music already. Plus I already canceld my subscription this month. Waste of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Elvis was an entertainer first. One could argue that in 1955-1956 he was actually a force in early rock. However, he either stopped caring about music, or simply wanted to just be an entertainer. I don't think he ever wrote a single song... Buddy Holly picked up where Elvis should have went in 1957 and sadly, his career ended too soon. The Beatles picked up from Holly and the rest was history.

Go back and see how many television households were watching The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in Feb. 1964. Yeah, The Beatles were the first to get a following of that magnitude. Small followings don't count. Come now, they stopped touring in 1966 to focus on studio work. Imagine that today? Beibs tells all his fans he's out of the limelight, going to focus on studio work. LOL.
The Beatles weren't the first to have a following of this magnitude. Frank Sinatra had the Bobby Soxers and Elvis proved his worldwide popularity with Aloha from Hawaii. However, even his first Ed Sullivan appearance was historical:

"The show was viewed by a record 60 million people which at the time was 82.6 percent of the television audience, and the largest single audience in television history."

I do agree that Elvis was a performer, but he was putting out hits (in several genres..blues, country, gospel, pop, and rock) before and after the Beatles disbanded. He may have had a writing credit here or there, but his main gift was taking a song written by someone else and re-interpreting it in his style (same as Frank Sinatra and many other cultural icons from that era). Uninformed people are under the impression that he stopped producing hits after the 50s, which is untrue. He had a song on the charts (Moody Blue) six months before his death.

The comparison of the Beatles to Elvis is like comparing Apples to Oranges. He was a single act and they were a group that was spawned from his influence (like many bands and artists that followed).

By the way, I agree that the Beatles were important to rock and I don't think it is possible for them to be "overrated".
 
The title is misleading. It's not exclusive to Apple Music, but "widely, widely available" on almost all music services starting Dec 24. Nothing special to see here...

Your post is misleading. "Exclusive" was your word, no-one else's.

You might take a headline that doesn't mention anything about exclusivity whatsoever, to somehow mean something is exclusive, but I don't know if anyone else did.

Seeing as the Beatles catalogue's absence on streaming services has been noteworthy for years now, the fact that it is now available is newsworthy too.

That it is now available on Apple Music isn't magically not newsworthy just because its on other streaming services.

In other apparently misleading news, our local Cineworld is advertising it is showing the new Star Wars film. Presumably you think that is misleading too, because the new Star Wars film is showing at other cinema chains?
 
No trolling intended here, but dude - first, the catalog in iTunes is the 2009 remasters, not the 1987 "remixes" (they were not remixed), and secondly; roughly 2/3 of the Beatles' mono output is available in iTunes via "The US Albums" collection.

When they made the 1987 albums, Help! and Rubber Soul were remixed by George Martin who didn't like the 1965 stereo mixes so those mixes are the ones which are used for the 2009 Stereo remasters. The 1965 Stereo mixes though are included on the Mono Box set.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imnotthewalrus
What really makes me mad is that Porcupine Tree is exclusive to Apple Music.
Now there's a good band! In Absentia is one of my all time favorite albums.

In other news, it seems the whiniest commenters here are the ones complaining about whiners. All the millennial hate from the boomers is quite telling.
 
The Beatles were talented, creative musicians but I don't see them as being super influential.

I think as artists the Beatles peaked with Revolver, tossing Mr Roberts, which sounded like an earlier session outtake and including For Know One from the Peppers album which was obviously recorded during the Revolver sessions. This was pop/rock realism with a happy tune, Yellow Submarine, tosses in for a little diversion and ending with probably one of rock's greatest accidental masterpieces, Tomorrow Never Knows. I also think Day In The Life was a subliminal hold over from Revolver. This album will always stand as their best work. One cannot talk about the Beatles without mentioning the huge contribution by George Martin. Without George Martin the Beatles floundered.

There were more influential musicians in pop/rock than the Beatles.

1. Don Van Vliet.
2. The Ramones
3. The Velvet Undergtround
4. Elvis Presley(Sun Records)
5. Buddy Holly
6. And many more.....

The Beatles had their moment and brought joy to many. They do deserve a certain amount of respect from all in music no matter one's tastes.

Gimme a break. That's all I'll say. You're really swimming against the ocean on this one.
 
I don't like the Beatles but their importance can't be denied. They were just ok individually but together made it work. Their first few albums were pop/marketable crap for teenage girls but they grew and got better.

To be honest I'm more of a Velvet Underground kind of person anyway, never really liked British bands to begin with because they just copied Americans...and made it "poppier."
 
Now there's a good band! In Absentia is one of my all time favorite albums.

In other news, it seems the whiniest commenters here are the ones complaining about whiners. All the millennial hate from the boomers is quite telling.

Agree and In Absentia along with Deadwing from Porcupine Tree are still going strong on my Spotify as we speak. Awesome that I have Beatles now as well. Why do I keep hearing about exclusive things that aren't? Maybe it's an American thing? Either way never bother with trolls and haters.

Edit: Missing Fear of a Blank Planet, thats a bummer. Apple are destroying the entire concept of streaming services if they continuing down this route.
 
Last edited:
Agree and In Absentia along with Deadwing from Porcupine Tree are still going strong on my Spotify as we speak. Awesome that I have Beatles now as well. Why do I keep hearing about exclusive things that aren't? Maybe it's an American thing? Either way never bother with trolls and haters.

Edit: Missing Fear of a Blank Planet, thats a bummer. Apple are destroying the entire concept of streaming services if they continuing down this route.
Ooh nice! I only own In Absentia and Fear of a Blank Planet. The great thing about them is that you can listen to them straight through, almost like a rock opera. I'd imagine their concerts are incredible.

Time to go experience Deadwing for the first time - I can't wait!
 
Ooh nice! I only own In Absentia and Fear of a Blank Planet. The great thing about them is that you can listen to them straight through, almost like a rock opera. I'd imagine their concerts are incredible.

Time to go experience Deadwing for the first time - I can't wait!

Also don't forget to check out Steven Wilson's solo work - in particular Hand. Cannot. Erase.

Fantastic!
 
  • Like
Reactions: caseyfriday
What a good xmas present.....

My parents will be soo happy.. Just as long as we are all aware that the moment The Beatles hit these streaming services u just know people like me will use recording software.

ok.... we're cool with that,,,, moving on :D

I hate artists who just assume a streaming service is "as is" with absolutely not even a second thought "oh ya,,, we know people will record our music" that seriously doesn't go through any artists mind when streaming on a public network ?

I would be to me. Just putting it out there..... Take it, or leave it, but u know its gonna happen.

ok ...back to happy hour with MR.

What the heck are you talking about?

Why are you going to waste your time with "recording software" when you can just download it all directly for free from torrents?
 
BS news. Apple, work more on for example - custom snooze time, and not on dinosaurs, nobody cares that more bs is now available in apple "music".
 
BS news. Apple, work more on for example - custom snooze time, and not on dinosaurs, nobody cares that more bs is now available in apple "music".

You'd be surprised how many new subscribers this will get them. Even if they have it just for a month or two, it's millions in their pockets.
 
They really don’t though. They are three very talented musicians and a drummer.

They are however, not as good as people will have you believe.

Not as good as "Boomers" would have you believe.

Good band, yes, but I never got Beatlemania personally, but I was born in mid-1970's so maybe I lack the full 1960's context. I prefer Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones and The Doors as 60's bands. Beatles would be my Top 5 though.
 
i love beatles rock band and it's fun for karoake, but i still can't bring my self to just listen to them on my day to day playlists.
 
They are credited with reviving rock’n’roll, setting the template for modern pop songwriting, and inviting a generation to turn on, tune in and drop out by embracing psychedelia. But a study questions quite how influential the Beatles were – claiming they were merely following musical trends already set in motion.

Research by a group of London academics focuses on musical patterns in the US pop charts from 1960 to 2010, using data analysis to pinpoint the year in which trends appeared in the charts and measure their duration.

The study’s findings may come as a shock to fans of the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, as its authors believe there is no musical evidence to suggest that the “British invasion” of the early 60s caused a revolution in the US charts at all. Rather, the music style those bands displayed – measured by properties such as chord changes and tone – was already established in the US charts before they arrived.

The researchers believe they found evidence of a culture-shaking moment in pop, though – it just happened 30 years later. The emergence of hip-hop, which crash-landed in the charts in 1991, reinvented the musical landscape like nothing before or since, the study claims.

Its lead author, Matthias Mauch, from the school of electronic engineering and computer science at Queen Mary University of London, believes the research breaks new ground in the way it measures musical trends. “For the first time we can measure musical properties in recordings on a large scale. We can actually go beyond what music experts tell us, or what we know ourselves about them, by looking directly into the songs, measuring their makeup, and understanding how they have changed,” he said.

The researchers from Queen Mary and Imperial College London enlisted help from music website Last.fm to gather their data and employed methods such as signal processing and text-mining to analyse the musical properties of songs.

Their work also uncovers several other interesting findings that appear to contradict the established wisdom when it comes to the story of pop. So 1983 – a year generally held to herald the arrival of UK synth pop bands in the US charts – is highlighted as a year that stood out for the arrival of country and disco.

The idea that pop music has become less diverse is also disputed by the study, which names 1986 as the least diverse year in US chart history – which is attributed to the emergence of drum machines. The researchers state that there is no overriding trend that suggests the charts today are becoming more homogenous.

Not everyone is convinced by the findings, however. Mike Brocken, a senior lecturer in music at Liverpool Hope University and director of the world’s first Beatles masters degree, said: “Popular music cannot be ‘measured’ in this way – what about reception, the political economy, subcultures? So my first instincts are to question any study that uses the dreaded data analysis.”

He added: “I don’t think that the kind of formalistic musical analysis that is suggested here helps at all. The Beatles ‘communicated’ things to people; whether it was via an A-minor chord or an A-major chord really does not make the slightest difference. Semiotic approaches yield far more than chord shapes and time signatures.”

Brocken accepts that in many ways the Beatles were not pioneers of the musical styles they played, but believes this fails to diminish the group’s standing in the pop canon. “Most decent popular music researchers would probably agree that the Beatles were not so much innovators as musical magpies – and that’s not a criticism. They, like all of us, listened to all sorts of stuff and were duly inspired,” he said.

People who think The Beatles were revolutionary are scientifically, verifiably wrong
 
The Beatles Apple Music playlists are pretty fantastic. I already own the entire Beatles catalog on vinyl and CD, but these kind of playlists are the added value that makes me love Apple Music so much. It's definitely refreshing to have a Lennon Playlist combining his Beatles and solo material blended in a thoughtful way.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.