The Beatles on iTunes: Two Million Songs, 450,000 Albums Sold

[vnowarita]

I love how everybody is like "I've got the CDs who cares" or "Buy the CDs they are cheaper". The Beatles on iTunes isn't for you. It is for people who don't buy CDs, it's for the future when the majority of people get digital music and it's certainly for a whole generation of kids who won't know what a CD is or care, in the same way that vinyl is now seen as archaic.

I'm sure I am repeating someone else's thoughts, but it doesn't seem clear to a lot of people.

The real problem is you are losing the "feel" of those albums from Vinyl.
I'm a Gen Xer and tapes were b and Cd's were the big thing when I was growing up.
I had the luxury of having parents who had a Grundig Majestic Stereo with record player. I own it now. It captures a lot more of the recording than digital ever can.
Case and Point Rolling Stones "Let it Bleed"
No comparison. I love digital music because its easy to store. That's it. Quality goes to Vinyl hands down. I'm just sayin'. Vinyl is not Archaic is all.

 

[KeithJenner]

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.

The Mono mixes are very different to the Stereo ones. It isn't just a case of only having one output but they are different mixes. Songs play at different speeds and, for example, the end of Helter Skelter is totally different (no blisters on the fingers). There are also lots of subtle differences.

 

[greg555]

One reason seldom mentioned is people who like a dozen or two Beatles songs but because they are spread across 10 different albums have never bought the CDs.

Now they can buy (just) the songs they like. And I did. (Bought 12 last night and will probably get another 5 or 10.)

Greg

 

[gnasher729]

Why all the focus on Bach in this thread?

Beatles>Jesus>Beethoven>[insert 40 or 50 names here]


>Bach

I think there was a quote from Mozart, who obviously didn't know the Beatles, who didn't rank Jesus very high as a composer, but who put Bach ahead of Beethoven.

 

[OllyW]

I think there was a quote from Mozart, who obviously didn't know the Beatles, who didn't rank Jesus very high as a composer, but who put Bach ahead of Beethoven.

Are you sure about that?

Mozart died in 1791 and Beethoven's first compositions were not published until 1795.

 

[jackrabbit]

please change this post

i am tired of checking page two and seeing the Beatles. Thanks!

 

[kiljoy616]

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...

I know I did not, but dam impressive

 

[JackieTreehorn]

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.

Madonna has sold more albums than Maria Callas. In fact, Britney Spears has sold more albums than Maria Callas. So you would call Madonna and Spears better singers than Callas.

McDonald's sells more meals per day than El Bulli does in a year: So you would call McDonald's a better restaurant than El Bulli.

The amount of sold items has got nothing to do with musical genius. Which most of the Beatles were very limited on.

Just wanted to point out the obvious flaw in your argumentation there, son.

 

[foiden]

Pop music sells because it's catchy, easy for people to follow, and speaks to more people at the right time.

Pop music is almost never rated due to technical musical talent. Never has, never will be. It's because the casual ear isn't listening for that. It's listening for whatever speaks to them. Pop music, thus, is rated on a completely different level.

True story. What could be Bobby Mcferrin's least technical-savvy musical piece? One done with the most simplicity and the least use of his talent happened to be "Don't worry be happy." Now I dare most people here to actually mention the name of one Bobby Mcferrin song outside of that and maybe his cover of "Baby you can drive my car." It took that simple song to make Mcferrin a temporary superstar, until he stepped out of the limelight. Obviously, the rules for what earns you awards in the Pop music culture, was not for him.

The Beatles, as they went forward. Like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, did bring some nice *a-typical* styles to the pop-culture. There's a number of pretty big bands that actually followed that. But they never quite made it overly technical to lose people. Hitting it big in pop is something people not so great in instrument-playing can be awesome at. They just need songwriters that truly understand what the majority can truly relate to.

Then on the other side, you have Frank Zappa. Writes crazy and weird songs. Had a group with absolutely incredible musical talent, and played a lot of music that really lost the casual ear. Fun guy for technical heads to listen to, but the casual ear would not catch on. To a degree, the formula was often the opposite of catchy.

 

[GovtLawyer]

[According to the report, "Abbey Road" was the best-selling album in the United States, while "Here Comes The Sun" topped the song charts.

It should be interesting to note that when the general public thinks of The Beatles, they think of Lennon/McCartney songs. "Here Comes the Sun" which appears to be the best selling Beatles song on iTunes, was written by George Harrison.

 

[pachyderm]

No kidding. So much for the "everyone already owns all The Beatles songs they want" mantra.

The iTunes stuff is very good quality. I went and bought several tunes that I didn't have from the re-mastered stuff.

lady bla bla has some talent. you have to have some to get admitted to juliard and NYU. even madonna had a good musical education before she hit the clubs in the 1980's

if you haven't seen this yet, it's lady bla bla a year or so before she hit it big

Ga ga seems to be more , much more, talented that Madonna though. Madonna = tone def.

The Beatles: Four guys who needed each other, because individually they were musical infants.

No, thanks.

The single worst summation of The Beatles. Ever. You don't deserve to hear them.

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...

I posted this on the Decemberists forum and it also got mixed reviews.

Although I have most of their stuff, from first CD's released in '87, I don't have all the re-masters recently issued. Like I said above it is nice to be able to click and shop if need be.

 

[VictoriaStudent]

Who are the Beatles?

I listened to some previews in iTunes and it just sounds like some old, dusty kind of annoying quasi-hippy stuff.

 

[Morod]

I bought 10 out of those 2,000,000 songs

I'm in for two of them.

 

[txa1265]

Who are the Beatles?

I listened to some previews in iTunes and it just sounds like some old, dusty kind of annoying quasi-hippy stuff.

They are the foundation of everything in the pop & rock world with a reach way outside of just pop & rock. Like Zepplin or Pink Floyd? You like the Beatles. Like Coldplay or Eminem or Devil Wears Prada or Pat Metheny or whatever ... you like the Beatles.

 

[VictoriaStudent]

They are the foundation of everything in the pop & rock world with a reach way outside of just pop & rock. Like Zepplin or Pink Floyd? You like the Beatles. Like Coldplay or Eminem or Devil Wears Prada or Pat Metheny or whatever ... you like the Beatles.

not really. If I like Pink Floyd, I like Pink Floyd...not the Beatles.

Saying I like Apples doesn't = I like oranges...though both are fruit.

the Beatles are talented, but tired. That was my point.
I know everyone loves them, and I also know that everyone loves the familiar...but, uh, there's loads better new music from this century and I think it would be nice to let a dead dog lay.

 

[chillywilly]

not really. If I like Pink Floyd, I like Pink Floyd...not the Beatles.

Saying I like Apples doesn't = I like oranges...though both are fruit.

I get the point of what txa1265 was saying.. lots of these bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zep were either influenced or used the rock beats that the Beatles created/expanded upon.

A better group comparison would be Black Sabbath, who were totally inspired by the Beatles. Simply playing both bands' songs side by side isn't how to compare, but more on a deeper musical level. The underlying parts.

Given all that, I know many people that don't like the Beatles but like other bands that may/may not have been directly influenced by them.

 

[txa1265]

Personally I haven't listened to them much in years, and last month did a retrospective of their stuff ... it was interesting since most of my memory comes from the original US LP's my brother owned.

I really don't listen to much pop music ... I mention Pat Metheny as it is about as close to mainstream stuff as I get. So for me they aren't so tired ... certainly less so than the Eminem my older son listens to so much ...

I worded my original poorly, I was speaking of influence and being derivative ... Zepplin is a great example, as whether or not they were good, they were heavily influenced by the Beatles, Who, Jeff Beck group, and so on ... and it shows heavily in their work.

 

[chillywilly]

Personally I haven't listened to them much in years, and last month did a retrospective of their stuff ... it was interesting since most of my memory comes from the original US LP's my brother owned.

I really don't listen to much pop music ... I mention Pat Metheny as it is about as close to mainstream stuff as I get. So for me they aren't so tired ... certainly less so than the Eminem my older son listens to so much ...

I worded my original poorly, I was speaking of influence and being derivative ... Zepplin is a great example, as whether or not they were good, they were heavily influenced by the Beatles, Who, Jeff Beck group, and so on ... and it shows heavily in their work.

That's cool. I knew what you were getting at.

I've recently rediscovered "Abbey Road", which I've been playing a lot of (mostly starting with track 6 and playing to the "The End"). It really is timeless and reminds me of many other bands.

 

[foiden]

not really. If I like Pink Floyd, I like Pink Floyd...not the Beatles.

Saying I like Apples doesn't = I like oranges...though both are fruit.

the Beatles are talented, but tired. That was my point.
I know everyone loves them, and I also know that everyone loves the familiar...but, uh, there's loads better new music from this century and I think it would be nice to let a dead dog lay.

Which will be said by some new generation for your favorite timeless bands. The cycle simply starts anew. You can't let a dead dog lay when people are still all listening to Mozart, Beetoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky. No more than you can tell Drama-fans to put down William Shakespeare or even the majority of plays made between 1920 and 1986. They get repeated and people will never tire of seeing them again. Same thing for Elvis. People will be getting collections for him well past 2020.

 

[ChrisA]

My experience is that most of the people who say those kinds of things don't actually know anything about music, and may have very little musical education. People who know music either by critical listening, study, or learning an instrument, while they may have their preferences, wouldn't dismiss an entire artist's catalog based on their historical time or genre.

A few do. But they tend to go the other way and say anything written AFTER some period is rubbish.

But you are right. Most who dismiss an entire catalog based on the year are not really listening. Any bass player alive today needs to study Paul McCartney (and many others too). Paul really did open up what a bass player can play.

BTW have you heard Paul's newer CD "driving Rain" his bass playing, I think has improved and because it is a solo album they actually feature Paul on bass as a solo.

All that said, I think I'm still a fan but I don't listen much any more. I've heard it all enough times. When the re-mastered CDs came out I had to hear it. Wat caught me this time, and that is after learning a little about music is their timing on the vocals, it's dead-on.

 

[Richard1028]

I know that when the Beatles hit iTunes it was a day I was always supposed to remember but...

I already forgot what day that was.

 

[rdlink]

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.

So, if you steal something from the store, and feel guilty about it later, do you sneak in and try to put it back on the shelf? Just curious.

 

[txa1265]

But you are right. Most who dismiss an entire catalog based on the year are not really listening. Any bass player alive today needs to study Paul McCartney (and many others too). Paul really did open up what a bass player can play.

Honestly, most musicians don't study the Beatles as individuals - nor do they need to - because they were just solid musicians, nothing spectacular. When you had Clapton, Beck, and even Townshend, there is no need to study Lennon or Harrison. When you had Entwistle ... no need for McCartney.

... and that putting aside the fact that in the mid 60's the level of musicianship exhibited by even average jazz players was far above anything rock players seen as 'innovators' were doing ...

 

[John.B]

Honestly, most musicians don't study the Beatles as individuals - nor do they need to - because they were just solid musicians, nothing spectacular. When you had Clapton, Beck, and even Townshend, there is no need to study Lennon or Harrison. When you had Entwistle ... no need for McCartney.

Even though Clapton, Beck, Townshend, and Entwistle left some pretty big footsteps, every one of them would admit they themselves followed in some pretty big footsteps as well.

And, from a slightly different angle, Les Paul as well as the Beatles/EMI made huge strides in recording techniques that are still the foundations today for what is now commonly done in Pro Tools. Whether or not you like Les Paul or the Beatles, that's still true.

Pioneers are still the pioneers; the greats always stand on the shoulders of the greats that came before them, it's how it works. All are made up from parts of the work of those who came before. The "greatest rock and roll band in the world" never becomes that without Muddy Waters, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry; but you don't even have to be a fan of those guys to like what the Stones built from those influences. Or what will be made from musicians who have the Stones as one of their influences.

... and that putting aside the fact that in the mid 60's the level of musicianship exhibited by even average jazz players was far above anything rock players seen as 'innovators' were doing ...

It's an unfortunate fact that their level of musicianship and talent may have no bearing on their success or their the ability to influence modern music. The world is full of technically proficient musicians playing music nobody wants to listen to. Sad, yes, but there it is.

 

[txa1265]

Even though Clapton, Beck, Townshend, and Entwistle left some pretty big footsteps, every one of them would admit they themselves followed in some pretty big footsteps as well.

And, from a slightly different angle, Les Paul as well as the Beatles/EMI made huge strides in recording techniques that are still the foundations today for what is now commonly done in Pro Tools. Whether or not you like Les Paul or the Beatles, that's still true.

I was commenting specifically on 'studying Paul McCartney' as a bassist as mentioned above, and actually showed my love / respect for the Beatles and their innovations in songwriting, pop music, and studio exploration earlier in the thread by citing a retrospective I had done.

So I guess while I would say that the Yardbirds, Who, etc owe much to the Beatles as groups, Jeff Beck owes nothing to Lennon & Harrison as guitarists, if you know what I mean.

It's an unfortunate fact that their level of musicianship and talent may have no bearing on their success or their the ability to influence modern music. The world is full of technically proficient musicians playing music nobody wants to listen to. Sad, yes, but there it is.

But as you say, all of these people started somewhere ... some listening to Sinatra, others the blues, others to Miles and Bird and Django and Wes and so on ... I mean, Alex Lifeson of Rush owes his musical life to Allan Holdsworth (after he was done being a Jimmy Page clone, that is), so for all of the millions of kids playing Rush riffs over the years, they owe a debt to Holdsworth ...