I sympathise with lots of your points, but this one doesn't necessarily stand up.
Cost of an external hard disk to back up my entire music library (if I had bought it all from iTunes): Approx £40
Cost of shelving to hold all my CD's: Approx £200
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 sympathise with lots of your points, but this one doesn't necessarily stand up.
Cost of an external hard disk to back up my entire music library (if I had bought it all from iTunes): Approx £40
Cost of shelving to hold all my CD's: Approx £200
I understand what you are saying and already realized that, like I said, I would love for iTunes to be my one stop shop for music, because it's more convenient. But their pricing is off due to such low overhead, that I shouldn't be able to buy physical media more cheaply.
My argument is has more to do with them not keeping accounts that you can access your purchased stuff from. It is more of the fact that I don't want to back up stuff 2 or 3 times over because if it is lost I wouldn't be able to get it again. Hard drives do fail quite a bit. I know there are circumstance of apple letting people download all their stuff once, but it should be something they would offer anyway.
Most of my original post would pertain to buying something like the Beatles Box set on iTunes. I could buy it on iTunes for $150 in digital format or go to Amazon get the real box set for $130 encode it in better quality if I desired and either throw the box set away, give it away or sell it for lets say $80, if I didn't want it taking up space. So it cost me $50, and I have the same exact thing I would have gotten on iTunes for about one third the cost (depending on what I sold it for). If you still think that buying that set on iTunes is the better value then that's fine. To me it just doesn't compare.
I didn't really mean to write a rant opposed to trying to make people realize that iTunes is not a good deal in many cases and they should not be charging what they do, but people are so blinded, it makes me wonder.
Don't get me wrong, on few occasions I do buy music on iTunes but I still think it is a ripoff because it is an all digital purchase.
Well that hardly guarantees you'd be fun to hang around with now.
And if repetitive lyrics aren't your thing, what about Alvin Lee singing "I'm Going Home" at Woodstock?
Haha, Kesha who?
Comment again when you are 18, if she is still around in 6 years
Maybe the Beatles should have worn meat suits...
Is this close enough for you?
Are you always this late to the show?
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11477087#post11477087
Keith, how do you like it. Is there a major difference between that set and the mono set. I am curious because I have been eyeing that purchase.
I assume that you have the Mono set. If so, you have the better one (other than missing Abbey Road and Let It Be. As has been said many times they are better mixes and the differences are fairly significant in places. Due to the differences, it's easier to argue that you need the both.
I like the Mono set packaging, with the replica sleeves, but the stereo set packaging is also very good with better sleeve notes and the mini documentaries. The box set comes with all the documentaries on one DVD which is better than watching them individually on the CD's
Go on, you know you want to.
I assume that you have the Mono set. If so, you have the better one (other than missing Abbey Road and Let It Be. As has been said many times they are better mixes and the differences are fairly significant in places. Due to the differences, it's easier to argue that you need the both.
I like the Mono set packaging, with the replica sleeves, but the stereo set packaging is also very good with better sleeve notes and the mini documentaries. The box set comes with all the documentaries on one DVD which is better than watching them individually on the CD's
Go on, you know you want to.
I don't have either, but I was wondering which set was better, overall I guess
In that case, I'd recommend the Mono set plus Abbey Road and Let It Be separately.
The Mono is supposed to be limited (although we know that usually doesn't mean much), but you run the risk of not being able to get it at some point.
I'm sure there are a lot of us who have very wide musical interests. I usually listen to classical in the morning with my coffee and later--well lots of stuff rock, folk, blue grass, jazz, and yes some Beatles as well--it's all music--it's all good.
I know- it just seemed that some people in this thread thought a person was a musical infant if he liked The Beatles
I know- it just seemed that some people in this thread thought a person was a musical infant if he liked The Beatles
I totally admit I am a musical infant. Though I play a few instruments, I don't read music and I certainly can't score anything, even in C and A minor. If being a musician or true music critic requires one read and write music properly, then I am not a musician by that definition, but I still love the Beatles.
I did take music appreciation in college and learned to love Bach and Beethoven, but I dropped out of that class. What was covered in 20th century classical, Broadway, Rock and Roll, and Jazz took up just one class meeting. But we spent two class meetings just on Brahms, and more on Bach and Beethoven. We met three times a week for 16 weeks and maybe we talked about the Beatles for ten minutes if even that. I have to say it kind of irked me that the entire last century of music (regardless of style) was covered in one hour.
That being said, I know real musicians who have music degrees who love the Beatles and comfortably have their CDs on the shelf right next to the classical composers and great operas.
I think most Beatles fans ripped all the CDs in long ago, at least that what I did.
With the digital signal... you can flip the waveform and play it in reverse... much easier than what we had to do by spinning our turntables backwards to hear the "real lyrics".
/Jim
Since I posted this... I have been reading the "Paul is Dead" hoax. There are hundreds of clues... but this had to be one of the most telling:
Revolution 9 - various bits of chatter and noise can be heard that represent Paul's death, including "his voice was low and his eyes were high and his eyes were closed", "Paul died", "my fingers are broken and so is my hair. I'm not in the mood for wearing clothing", "maybe even dead", "you become naked (the way a body is buried)", and most interesting, there is a clip where a car crashes and catches on fire. "Paul" can be heard screaming "Get me out." Finally, the voice repeating "number nine, number nine" at the beginning, when played backward, says the infamous phrase "Turn me on, dead man, turn me on, dead man."
/Jim
Last edited by a moderator:
We covered this earlier. That was the conventional wisdom, but it has turned out to be 180° wrong.
As of a few minutes ago, the top iTunes rock albums in the US store are:
- 1. Abbey Road
- 2. The Beatles (White Album)
- 3. Sgt. Peppers
- 4. The Red Album (62-66)
- 5. The Blue Album (67-70)
- 7. The Beatles Box Set (at $149!)
- 8. Rubber Soul
- 9. Revolver
- 10. Let It Be
- 13. Magical Mystery Tour
- 14. Hard Day's Night
- 15. Help!
- 18. Please Please Me
- 19. With The Beatles
- 20. Past Masters 1 & 2
I guess you're right, but it means I'm much older than I thought ! I grew up with CDs and now, kids don't know what a CD is
I knew of someone that had the Butcher cover (pealed) and it wasn't worth as much as an original. The record store I used to frequent back in the day, did have an original (claimed it was purchased at a store, even though many collectors refute that was even possible). Regardless, it was on display at the store and collectors did determine it was NOT a pealed version. Estimates placed it at around $10,000 at the time (early 80's)
I wonder, given these times of a cover like that not causing too much of a stir, if a reissue would ever be released? I'm sure the collectors would balk at such a thing, but the rest of us wouldn't mind owning something like that.
Anybody else notice that the supposed "limited edition" mono box set, which sold out on the first day it was available for pre-order, seems to have hung around for a bit?
It's available on Amazon for I believe half what I paid for it over a year ago.
If I had realized that "Limited edition" meant "only limited by how many copies our CD presses can turn out" or "only limited by how many you gullible public will buy" then perhaps I could have saved myself some money.
I guess a sucker is born every minute.
It's available on Amazon for I believe half what I paid for it over a year ago.
If I had realized that "Limited edition" meant "only limited by how many copies our CD presses can turn out" or "only limited by how many you gullible public will buy" then perhaps I could have saved myself some money.
I guess a sucker is born every minute.
In response to 63dot, it looks like there was a reproduction.
http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Butcher-Yesterday-Sealed-Record/dp/B002C0ZJUW
Now, I wonder if part of the iTunes deal involves "Yesterday and Today" and if a digital version of the cover would be included?
http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Butcher-Yesterday-Sealed-Record/dp/B002C0ZJUW
Now, I wonder if part of the iTunes deal involves "Yesterday and Today" and if a digital version of the cover would be included?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I think you are spot on with this. Amongst the throngs of those who "meh" everything, the digitizing of the Beatles is all about having their music to those who only know and purchase digital.
My daughter, who is 19, didn't know anything before CD until I educated her. At least she still buys CDs to this day.
Really? Are you 12? If so then I can understand. Aside from Ringo they all went out and had not only successful solo careers but also continued to influence other artists and music as a whole. C'mon. Lennon and McCartney obviously did. Harrison was the most under rated. He was the leader of the Traveling Wilbury's(Great Band) and many looked up to him. All things must Pass- Great F'in album.
I assume that you have the Mono set. If so, you have the better one (other than missing Abbey Road and Let It Be. As has been said many times they are better mixes and the differences are fairly significant in places. Due to the differences, it's easier to argue that you need the both.
I like the Mono set packaging, with the replica sleeves, but the stereo set packaging is also very good with better sleeve notes and the mini documentaries. The box set comes with all the documentaries on one DVD which is better than watching them individually on the CD's
Go on, you know you want to.
I don't have the mono set but I listen to lossless CD rips with my iPhone set to mono. In mono I get to hear what George Martin really had in mind. An additional benefit is that mono tends to hide George's horrible guitar playing, attempts at singing songs too difficult for their singing abilities and most of all horrible stereo versions that resulted from down mixing with primitive recording equipment.
In all fairness to The Beatles the modern concept of stereo intended for headphone use with centered voices, duplicated guitars at maximum spread and slightly spread but centered drums hadn't been invented yet. Especially for the earlier albums the mono sound is The Beatles sound.