Beatles online gig won't be iTunes exclusive
Every song from the legendary music catalog of The Beatles will soon be available for purchase online, the head of the band's record label says, but the party won't be limited to Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store.
"All 13 core albums, the ones originally released on CD in 1987, have been remastered," Apple Corps chief Neil Aspinall told Fox News. "At some point they will all be released, probably at the same time.?
Aspinall, however, implied that the recent settlement between Apple Inc. and Apple Corps did not address download rights to the band's online offerings, adding that when the re-mastered copies are release, "it will be on all the services, not just one."
He also dropped hints that the settlement between the two Apple's, which ended a near 30-year spat, may have awarded The Beatles a small piece of the profits from iTunes and iPod sales.
"The Beatles, sources say (and not Aspinall, whom I didn't even discuss this with), may have won royalties on Apple iTunes/iPod hardware as part of the settlement," wrote Fox News reporter Roger Friedman.
Rumors of an exclusive arrangement between The Beatles and iTunes have swirled for weeks, helped by two separate media reports that pegged the two parties for a collaborative effort.
The first report surfaced on Beatles news site Abbey Road Best, which talked of an exclusive deal that would give Apple first crack at online distribution of Beatles songs beginning on Valentine's Day (tomorrow).
On the heels of that report came similar claims from the Toronto Sun, which added that Apple had planned a "special" announcement regarding the matter for the February 4th Super Bowl event.
Although neither rumor came to pass, it remains likely that The Beatles' online debut will take place by month's end.
"All 13 core albums, the ones originally released on CD in 1987, have been remastered," Apple Corps chief Neil Aspinall told Fox News. "At some point they will all be released, probably at the same time.?
Aspinall, however, implied that the recent settlement between Apple Inc. and Apple Corps did not address download rights to the band's online offerings, adding that when the re-mastered copies are release, "it will be on all the services, not just one."
He also dropped hints that the settlement between the two Apple's, which ended a near 30-year spat, may have awarded The Beatles a small piece of the profits from iTunes and iPod sales.
"The Beatles, sources say (and not Aspinall, whom I didn't even discuss this with), may have won royalties on Apple iTunes/iPod hardware as part of the settlement," wrote Fox News reporter Roger Friedman.
Rumors of an exclusive arrangement between The Beatles and iTunes have swirled for weeks, helped by two separate media reports that pegged the two parties for a collaborative effort.
The first report surfaced on Beatles news site Abbey Road Best, which talked of an exclusive deal that would give Apple first crack at online distribution of Beatles songs beginning on Valentine's Day (tomorrow).
On the heels of that report came similar claims from the Toronto Sun, which added that Apple had planned a "special" announcement regarding the matter for the February 4th Super Bowl event.
Although neither rumor came to pass, it remains likely that The Beatles' online debut will take place by month's end.
Comments
This means that the Beatles WILL be exclusively on iTunes!
-=|Mgkwho
So we all talk trash about MS paying Zune royalities to whatever label that was. Now it's possible Apple is doing the same. Time to talk trash about Apple!
This sounds like royalties from a preloaded Beatles iPod.
Yellow (Submarine) iPod nano anyone?
Check the subject line. It's a double negative.
I am not smart enough to be reading these forums.
So we all talk trash about MS paying Zune royalities to whatever label that was. Now it's possible Apple is doing the same. Time to talk trash about Apple!
Yah, I'm suspecting that the royalites would be for a Beatles branded iPod. But, if they're truly paying Apple Corps. royalties on ALL the iPods, that sucks, but it's not quite the same as Microsoft's deal with Universal. The reason for Microsoft's payments to universal is because "everybody knows we're carrying around pirated music with the devices", which pretty much condones piracy since we're paying for it now. If Apple is paying royalties to Apple Corps. It's not because of piracy, it's because of a dispute over apple's right to use their name in a music related business. That has nothing to do with piracy, so I'm cool with it.
... Yes, the Beatles were important in music - for their time.
"All 13 core albums, the ones originally released on CD in 1987, have been remastered," Apple Corps chief Neil Aspinall told Fox News. "At some point they will all be released, probably at the same time.”
Wow, completely remastered! That's great! Up until it gets all compressed into 128kbps files. Great.....
Wow, completely remastered! That's great! Up until it gets all compressed into 128kbps files. Great.....
I agree that some can hear a difference. I'm deaf, I can't. But isn't it apparent that the mass public can't either. Back in the napster days, the overwhelming majority of files were ripped at 128 MP3. And that's MP3, which isn't as good as the 128 AAC that iTunes has.
Ah... the nostalgia of the Baby Boomer generation! Yes, the Beatles were important in music - for their time. But other than the fact that Paul McCartney now looks like Angela Lansbury, what is so interesting about the Beatles that Apple should need to fall all over themselves trying to sign them on exclusively. (Sorry, Mr. Jobs, I just don't get it).
Actually, they were important to the development of modern pop and rock music, period. Their influence is vast.
Not to mention that they're the best selling act of all time. Period.
Not to mention that they're the best selling act of all time. Period.
Apparently, the answer is not quite as clear cut as that... could be Elvis, could be The Beatles, could be another group... there is no definitive record (no pun intended) of all sales for comparison.
Apparently, the answer is not quite as clear cut as that... could be Elvis, could be The Beatles, could be another group... there is no definitive record (no pun intended) of all sales for comparison.
Wikipedia: "According to EMI and the Guinness Book of Records, the Beatles have sold in excess of one billion units (1,010,000,000, including cassettes, records, CDs and bootlegs). The only other artist to come close is Elvis Presley."
Wikipedia: "According to EMI and the Guinness Book of Records, the Beatles have sold in excess of one billion units (1,010,000,000, including cassettes, records, CDs and bootlegs). The only other artist to come close is Elvis Presley."
Wikiality
Wikipedia: "According to EMI and the Guinness Book of Records, the Beatles have sold in excess of one billion units (1,010,000,000, including cassettes, records, CDs and bootlegs). The only other artist to come close is Elvis Presley."
Actually, he's (quoting Wikipedia) quoting Guinness Book of Records.