Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I really don't get all of those who constantly are saying things like "Don't care for them, they were before my time . . . " or "They're so old, they're not relevant . . .", etc. Really? I just don't get it. Monet, Davinci, Bach, Cole Porter, Sonny Boy Williamson, Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday and Charlie Parker were all before my time, yet I appreciate them. Having an artist being born before your time shouldn't have anything to do with "appreciating" them. That's the whole point - art is timeless. I' guess it has to do with how you grew up and what you were exposed to that makes a difference.

All kinds of music was being played in my house when I grew up. My dad played primarily four kinds of music in our house: classical, tango, opera and jazz and I got exposed to all of them - everyday. But all kinds of music would be played, not just these four kinds. While the Beatles were not one of the groups constantly being played on my dad's Hi-Fi, my parents did appreciate them and would play them on the radio once in a while, just to expose us kids to them. This, I believe, is one reason I listen to ALL kinds of music today. Not only do I listen to the classics, but also to many current and obscure artists of today. And I am doing the same with my son. He is exposed to all facets of music and art and has a great appreciation of all kinds of music. And you know who's his favorite? Louis Prima. My son's 6 years old and he couldn't care one bit when Louis was born. Not one bit. My dad would be proud.
 
Last edited:
Clearly not yours either, son.
While there's some positive link between Mac-usage and intellect, you shouldn't take that information as meaning that posting on a Mac Forum gets you any intellect points.

So far, you've added nothing but focusing on the messenger. Which is typical, if knowledge about the topic of discussion is superficial at best.

For all to see.

Sleep tight under your Beatles blanket, son.
 
When you study harmony, who are you going to study the most? Bach
When you study Music History of the Baroque era, who is going to take the biggest part of the semester? Bach.
When you study Harpsichord or organ, who is the biggest composer you are going to study? Bach. Even when you do piano, you are going to study Bach at leas at the beginning before your Liszt and Rachmaninoff.

I know they teach popular music at universities. The course on popular is music is optional. My wife took a course on popular music at Montreal university. They studied the Beatles for about 20 minutes of the whole semester. I did my bachelor's in the USA, my master's in Paris, DEM in Paris and my doctorate at Montreal. I know 20 is minutes is the most the Beatles are going to get. That's how important they are to music history. Perhaps, they are important in popular music.

You think you know about music, but your knowledge is very limited. It is just plain ridiculous to compare them to Bach.

How about if you don't study these things, but just enjoy them for what they are.
 
ITT internet snarky-ness reaches yet another peak :rolleyes:

It's pretty cool that it's selling so well. I mean it's gonna die down... a lot... once Biebus decides to release his next musical masterpiece, but nonetheless very cool.
 
While there's some positive link between Mac-usage and intellect, you shouldn't take that information as meaning that posting on a Mac Forum gets you any intellect points.

So far, you've added nothing but focusing on the messenger. Which is typical, if knowledge about the topic of discussion is superficial at best.

For all to see.

Sleep tight under your Beatles blanket, son.

Brilliant.

What do you want me to say that people haven't already voiced?

That The Beatles have received 7 Grammy Awards and 15 Ivor Novello Awards.

That they have been awarded 6 Diamond albums, as well as 24 Multi-Platinum albums, 39 Platinum albums and 45 Gold albums in the United States and in the UK they have 4 Multi-Platinum albums, 4 Platinum albums, 8 Gold albums and 1 Silver album?

The fact that you can just dismiss them is laughable but hey i don't want to upset you anymore than i have.

Oh and stop calling me son.
 
Brilliant.

What do you want me to say that people haven't already voiced?

That The Beatles have received 7 Grammy Awards and 15 Ivor Novello Awards.

That they have been awarded 6 Diamond albums, as well as 24 Multi-Platinum albums, 39 Platinum albums and 45 Gold albums in the United States and in the UK they have 4 Multi-Platinum albums, 4 Platinum albums, 8 Gold albums and 1 Silver album?

The fact that you can just dismiss them is laughable but hey i don't want to upset you anymore than i have.

Oh and stop calling me son.

Looks like both of you were calling each other son, as some sort of insult or something…? I don't understand you kids these days.
 
24 must be your musical IQ; get some education before you enter discussions like this.

This isn't a discussion, this is a bunch of people with nothing better to do than argue about a music store.

Bach is awesome.

The Beatles are awesome.

Go outside, people.
 
The Beatles did the meat thing in 1966. ;)

602px-The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg

Haha, Great find:)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

The Beatles are now in iTunes?!?

I did not know that!!

;)


Not bad for a group that broke up 40 years ago.
 
I want to know out of those numbers, who are new beatles listeners and who's buying the same album over adn over again.

Reminds me of the people who own every media version of StarWars.
 
I'm curious. Anybody know where all that money goes? How much does Apple (the computer company) get vs. music companies vs. the two remaining Beatles? I heard that Michael Jackson owned the rights to a lot of Beatles songs - and now he's gone too. Any place this can be looked at?

Rich :cool:
 
I said if my dad ever met John Lennon: that meant that JL is about the only one with musical talent in the Beatles. Try reading a little bit better next time.

And suggesting, or even blatantly stating, that Beatles and Madonna have transcended music more than Bach is about as musically stupid as it comes. Bach not only wrote his own music (Madonna just drops into a studio every now and then), he could also conduct orchestras (the Beatles could do one thing individually; that's why they are called the Fab FOUR), his impact on developing Baroque music is unquestioned and his composition skills and musical knowledge have been admired by the likes of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven.

24 must be your musical IQ; get some education before you enter discussions like this.

It's exactly what I'm stating...transcending music means their impact has gone above and beyond music. They had an impact on society. You don't have to be a student of music to know who they are and what they have done. How did Bach transcend music?

You need some education as well. Madonna can play numerous musical instruments (she was a drummer in a band before she hit big) and has written music and lyrics for years. And she can dance! Can Bach dance??

And seriously, nobody is going to take you seriously if you are rude and dismissive. Just because you like classical music doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. Everyone has different tastes. Deal with it.
 
I'm curious. Anybody know where all that money goes? How much does Apple (the computer company) get vs. music companies vs. the two remaining Beatles? I heard that Michael Jackson owned the rights to a lot of Beatles songs - and now he's gone too. Any place this can be looked at?

Rich :cool:

Thats a good point! I know Jacko had out bid McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs but i too wonder who owns them now?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I thought no one cared...

No one cared until the X-Factor show made the theme for last week's songs "The Beatles". Suddenly millions of UK TV viewers cared. The long "Beatles now on iTunes" adverts aired in the breaks just increased the profile.
 
No one cared until the X-Factor show made the theme for last week's songs "The Beatles". Suddenly millions of UK TV viewers cared. The long "Beatles now on iTunes" adverts aired in the breaks just increased the profile.

Plus (i could be wrong) Simon "Money Whore" Cowell has his fingers in Sony who co-own the rights to The Beatles catalogue!?

Don't quote me on that.
 
So far, you've added nothing but focusing on the messenger. Which is typical, if knowledge about the topic of discussion is superficial at best.

Referring to Paul McCartney as a musical infant when there aren't more than a handful of songwriters in the 20th century who had a better knack for melody is just absurd.
 
The Beatles did the meat thing in 1966. ;)

602px-The_Beatles_-_Butcher_Cover.jpg

The legendary butcher cover.

My brother in law bought the regular cover "Yesterday and Today" album for 25 cents at a garage sale, but underneath the placid regular cover was this gory one.

He then called our friend who owned a local used record shop. The record store owner urged him not to peel off the front image, even though my brother in law was curious as to what may be underneath that wholesome photo of the Beatles. Despite its estimated value at that time (early 90's) being $1,000 dollars, he steamed off the regular cover to reveal the butcher cover and thus dropped the value of the LP by half the amount. The record shop owner was distraught!

The most sought after cover is the censored "safe" one with this gore hiding underneath it. Today a cover like this, with all the blood and gore, would not upset anyone.
 

Attachments

  • Beatles-Yesterday-And-T--2ND-TRY.jpg
    Beatles-Yesterday-And-T--2ND-TRY.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 122
Last edited:
I'm curious. Anybody know where all that money goes? How much does Apple (the computer company) get vs. music companies vs. the two remaining Beatles? I heard that Michael Jackson owned the rights to a lot of Beatles songs - and now he's gone too. Any place this can be looked at?

Rich :cool:

Thats a good point! I know Jacko had out bid McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs but i too wonder who owns them now?

Plus (i could be wrong) Simon "Money Whore" Cowell has his fingers in Sony who co-own the rights to The Beatles catalogue!?

Don't quote me on that.

Sony & the Jackson estate own the publishing rights for a lot of the Beatles songs.

The Beatles and EMI own the recordings.

Sony & Jackson (& Cowell ?) don't make anything from the Beatles sales on iTunes. They do get paid for the performances on the X-Factor (this is shared with the song writers).

The Beatles and EMI are the big winners and Apple haven't done too bad. :)
 
I've been looking for the Yesterday and Today album forever!

I'm pretty sure I'm considered part of the new generation and I "love" The Beatles.
 
Bach is awesome.

The Beatles are awesome.

Go outside, people.

I agree completely. Is it a crime to actually like both Bach and The Beatles? I must be an aberration or some kind of musical freak, according to certain people in this discussion:D

And it's nice and sunny outside today.

Anyway, good news on the early success of The Beatles- hopefully they can keep selling and laugh in the face of their detractors.
 
Thats a good point! I know Jacko had out bid McCartney on the rights to the Beatles songs but i too wonder who owns them now?
Michael Jackson bought ATV, which owns the Beatles catalog, in 1985, and 10 years later, merged with Sony, creating Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Jackson and Sony co-owned the Beatles catalog. Following Jackson's death, Sony/ATV keeps control of the Beatles' songs.
Plus (i could be wrong) Simon "Money Whore" Cowell has his fingers in Sony who co-own the rights to The Beatles catalogue!?
Simon Cowell has nothing whatsoever to do with the Beatles catalog. He's involved with Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Sony Music Entertainment, which are separate and distinct companies from Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which owns the catalog.
Don't quote me on that.
Too late! I already did! :D
 
Last edited:
While there's some positive link between Mac-usage and intellect, you shouldn't take that information as meaning that posting on a Mac Forum gets you any intellect points.

So far, you've added nothing but focusing on the messenger. Which is typical, if knowledge about the topic of discussion is superficial at best.

For all to see.

Sleep tight under your Beatles blanket, son.

Sorry Jackie, but I'd want to focus on the messenger too if the subject was 'Bach vs the Beatles' (cough) and the messenger was as condescending, stubborn, ridiculous and as entertaining as yourself.

No one's really trying to claim the Beatles are better than Bach (I can hardly believe I just said that statement seriously), but your arguments are hilariously absurd.

Repeatedly posting in a Beatles thread and sneering at such infantile pop music. Making presumptions about someone's education and throwing your own degrees around. I could go on, but after reading both your stupendous first paragraph of the quote above and your "I have this, and this, and this" signature, it's dawned on me that you must be a joke character. If so, well done. I love the ironic claims of maturity and intelligence.

---

As for the Beatles. My (lower-classed, uneducated) world is a better place with their music in it. ...innit!
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.