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 on iTunes: Two Million Songs, 450,000 Albums Sold
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I had not seen that before.It'd beautiful.Makes it all the more sad that she sold here soul to be famous.GaGa fever will probably be over in a few years.She could have had a lifetime of success and respect if she hadn't changed.So so sad.I hope in the future she looks back and thinks it was worth it.
No kidding. So much for the "everyone already owns all The Beatles songs they want" mantra.
+1
It was like saying everyone who wants an iPod already has one.
You can save a little money by buying the box set on CD from Amazon, but then your music is in that old-fashioned "hard-copy" format so you have to rip the music to iTunes!
Amazon also sells the mono collection, which I've been contemplating but haven't yet purchased.
Got it.Love it.And the stereo box,and the memory stick with the complete stereo box in MP3(or is it AAC..or both?)AND FLAC-the highest quality ever released.
Musical infants? Someone's not very knowledgeable:
Whether you like them or not, claiming that they're musical infants is a brilliant display of your ignorance.
Who???
Neither does obscurity. However, success in the music industry is generally measured by how many people like a musician's work. Ask any musician whether they'd rather create music that appeals to 4 people, or 40,000,000 people.
Your individual lack of appreciation of The Beatles doesn't diminish their success, collectively and individually. To discount their accomplishments and influence is to display monumental naiveté.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
This just proves how idiotic humanity is. These songs have been available in multiple formats for over 40 years, but only now, since they are offered in a lossy digital file, do people buy them.
This just proves how idiotic humanity is. These songs have been available in multiple formats for over 40 years, but only now, since they are offered in a lossy digital file, do people buy them.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
The Beatles are up there with the likes if Bach as far as helping to shape the future of musical style and sound. If you don't know who Bach is then I feel sorry for you.
The Beatles are up there with the likes if Bach as far as helping to shape the future of musical style and sound. If you don't know who Bach is then I feel sorry for you.
Considering that the Beetles were the 2nd highest selling musical act of the last decade people were still buying the physical CDs.
I'm saying that all those people who said, "Everyone who likes the Beatles already have all of their albums" (ahem, that list includes me!
) weren't just wrong, they were epically wrong. yes!
because EVERYONE has custom IEMs and pro level studio monitors hooked up to their professional amps in their phones, cars, gym headphones....jk no they don't.
Protip: Some people just wanna listen to the music. They don't care about the nuances removed by going to MP3 or an otherwise lossy format because their equipment is probably less than adequate to accentuate the difference anyway.
I'm saying that all those people who said, "Everyone who likes the Beatles already have all of their albums" (ahem, that list includes me!
Second.
Although... it could have just been fans who already owned pirated copies deciding that they liked the Beatles so much that they should legally download it.
I do that sometimes if I like something a lot and regret having pirated it.
All this proves is that Beatles fans like to waste their money repurchasing music they already own just because it's available in a new format. I bet that most of the albums and individual songs sold were purchased by people who already own that album/song.
Or perhaps a new generation of fans bought the music.
Or perhaps a new generation of fans bought the music.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not wasting money. Buying a digital copy results in higher quality than ripping the original vinyl albums, and buying remastered releases results in better quality than original releases.
Just because you don't have the ability to understand the importance or the appeal of Beatles music doesn't mean those who can are wasting money by buying what they like. It's really amazing how many posters like to criticize something, just because they don't personally like it. That's why millions of musicians can be successful, because there are so many musical tastes.
Like what you like. Buy what you want. But don't be so infantile as to attack those whose tastes differ from yours.
I thought I had heard it all!
Are you seriously comparing Bach to the Beatles?
There are hundreds of doctoral dissertations about Bach and his music. There are people studying his typography....etc. For example, there is a study about the color of the ink he used at the beginning of his Leipzig period. They found a relationship of patterns of writing and the color of the ink according to his age. That's is one of the thousands ways they have tried to find out the date of a single piece. There a lot people who devote their lives to perform or/and study his music.
Have they done that for the Beatles?
I am going to take you as my example form now on. I am going to tell my friends there is someone who compares Bach to the Beatles.
You quoted me before I added my final part at the bottom (it was the whole point to my post which I accidentally deleted changing the font size.). I was one of the people who thought everyone already owned their music who really wanted it. Apparently having The Beatles on iTunes appealed to a new generation of fans. I'm sure some people repurchased for the sake of supporting the Beatles. I would not doubt they have fans that dedicated. All your other stuff about understanding the importance of the Beatles is just gibberish to me. People love to overestimate their importance and act like they are the greatest thing to happen in the past 100 years.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
2 million x $1.29 = good money...
For those comparing Bach and Beatles:
http://amzn.to/fsWOO1
2 million x $1.29 = good money...
For those comparing Bach and Beatles:
http://amzn.to/fsWOO1
Yeppers. The Beatles were a great musical group. Innovative. They changed the music of the times. They began as pop and morphed into serious musicians with unique sounds. The White album was a landmark album. I wonder what the analysis will be in one hundred years? Bach=like? Probably....
You don't know how people will look at The Beatles in the next 100, 200, 300 years. In fact, from what I remember from a music class that I was in, Handel was looked upon as the superior composer during the Baroque period. It wasn't until sometime after his death, that Bach was reexamined. I would argue that the Beatles have had, relatively speaking, as much of an impact as Bach. The Beatles still influence today's music.
I don't understand how people can dismiss The Beatles so easily. Were they the most talented musicians? No. But as a group, they constructed a body of work that is, in my opinion, unparalleled.
So, there- I'm another person that just compared The Beatles to Bach
And The Beatles weren't pop. They were what was formally known as Rock and Roll
If so, I'm sure it was only by accident.
Casual Beatles fans won't know that several of the big hits -- like that ripping version of "Revolution" -- were only originally released as singles, then on the odd compilation album (Hey Jude, then later on the Blue Album, and finally Past Masters).
GGJstudios said:
+1
The Beatles have stood the test of time, which is my personal measure of artistic success.
chuckles :) said:
laughed so hard when I read this XD
You have obviously never heard of the auto-tune tool, and never heard her in person without audio altering tools. That's not talent, that's production.
The Beatles are talent. Green Day is talent. U2 is talent. Garth Brooks is talent. The Rolling Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Elvis are all talent.
Scott Joplin is talent, and I would wager that more people, even today, know "The Entertainer" than "Blah Blah Blah"...
People's view on music appreciation is severely warped.
I presume this is a piss take.
My point exactly.
I lol'ed, and I needed that in this thread.
Last edited: