Beatles online gig won't be iTunes exclusive

***AppleInsider*** · 02-13-2007, 10:02 AM

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.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

CosmoNut · 02-13-2007, 10:16 AM

Check the subject line. It's a double negative.

abrooks · 02-13-2007, 10:20 AM

"won't not be"

Macvault · 02-13-2007, 10:23 AM

"won't not be".... Sounds like Homer Simpson wrote this!

crees! · 02-13-2007, 10:25 AM

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!

mgkwho · 02-13-2007, 10:29 AM

YAY!

This means that the Beatles WILL be exclusively on iTunes!

-=|Mgkwho

Porchland · 02-13-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crees!

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?

bigdaddyp · 02-13-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmoNut

Check the subject line. It's a double negative.

I am not smart enough to be reading these forums.

philb · 02-13-2007, 11:37 AM

Just finished getting all the 'core CDs' (plus the rather good new 'Love' album) this christmas!

Calyptus · 02-13-2007, 11:42 AM

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).

DeaPeaJay · 02-13-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crees!

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.

Strawberry · 02-13-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calyptus

... Yes, the Beatles were important in music - for their time.

Louzer · 02-13-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

"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.....

DeaPeaJay · 02-13-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louzer

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.

Benton · 02-13-2007, 12:30 PM

Comments do not address whether iTunes may carry Beatles exclusively for a limited time.

gloss · 02-13-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calyptus

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.

SpamSandwich · 02-13-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloss

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.

gloss · 02-13-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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."

Omega · 02-13-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloss

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

SpamSandwich · 02-13-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloss

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."

Surely you're not quoting Wikipedia as the authority on this matter!? ...and I'm not calling you Shirley!

anantksundaram · 02-13-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Surely you're not quoting Wikipedia as the authority on this matter!? ...and I'm not calling you Shirley!

Actually, he's (quoting Wikipedia) quoting Guinness Book of Records.

theveeb · 02-13-2007, 11:49 PM

You people have got to be joking.

I predict remastered Beatles ALBUMS are going to be huge! I have no plans to buy DRMed/128kbps downloads though.

Smart move by the Beatles not to do an iTunes exclusive, hats off to them if that's true.

Paying a royalty on iTunes Store and the iPod to remove any restrictions on what Apple, Inc. can do in the music and entertainment business would be a smart move for both parties, "cha ching!" The royalty would be for rights to the name "Apple" and has absolutely no relation to the Zune/Universal tax.

DeaPeaJay · 02-14-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Surely you're not quoting Wikipedia as the authority on this matter!? ...and I'm not calling you Shirley!

Come on, you can't just dismiss everything that's on wikipedia simply because it's from wikipedia. A lot of times they are valid sources, you have to take it on a case by case basis.

CosmoNut · 02-14-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

Come on, you can't just dismiss everything that's on wikipedia simply because it's from wikipedia. A lot of times they are valid sources, you have to take it on a case by case basis.

Let's just say this: If I were a college professor I wouldn't allow students to use ANYTHING from Wikipedia as a valid source on a paper or project.

SpamSandwich · 02-15-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmoNut

Let's just say this: If I were a college professor I wouldn't allow students to use ANYTHING from Wikipedia as a valid source on a paper or project.

True. It provides mostly personal opinions of subject matter, often without peer review or fact checking. I'd balance it against other more reliable sources available.

austinrastaman · 02-18-2007, 04:44 AM

The good news is that these cd's will finally be remastered after all these years. Most everything else with a few exceptions is already remastered including the solo works of John, Paul, Ringo and George. It'll be expensive to replace the entire colleciton plus Past Masters Vol. 1 and 2 but it'll be well worth it. Then I will bestow my original collection onto someone who will appreciate it.

My entire collection of about 1400 cd's is on an external hard drive at 192 kbps aac vbr. I ripped them all using iTunes and I own a PC for the time being. I've talked two friends into buying a Mac though. I seem very satisfied with this level of quality. And I would feel jipped to pay .99 cents each for 128 kbps aac files like the ones that iTunes sells. And coincidentally, most of the other music services use 160 kbps wma files, which is about the same level of quality. I know on one hand they're trying to make the files small enough to be manageable but the problem could be solved if you could simply have a choice of a few different size options. Ie. apple lossless, 192, etc.

Because of this reason I'd rather purchase the cd, even used to have a hard copy that I can rip from to the jukebox program. On the bright side I love the iTunes software and can't wait for the next major upgrade!! I'd like to see matches on more of those cd covers.

02-13-2007, 10:02 AM	#1
*AppleInsider* Kasper's Automated Slave Join Date: Nov 1997 Posts: 6,151	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. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

02-13-2007, 10:16 AM	#2
CosmoNut Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Non-Cupertino-based Posts: 4,831	Check the subject line. It's a double negative. AppleInsider's "journalists" are anything but.

02-13-2007, 10:23 AM	#4
Macvault Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Southern Oregon Posts: 318	Dohhh! "won't not be".... Sounds like Homer Simpson wrote this!

02-13-2007, 10:29 AM	#6
mgkwho Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cleveland (Home) Chicago (School) Posts: 158	YAY! This means that the Beatles WILL be exclusively on iTunes! -=\|Mgkwho 17" MBP

02-13-2007, 11:42 AM	#10
Calyptus Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5	oldTunes 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).

02-13-2007, 10:20 AM	#3
abrooks Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 63	"won't not be"

02-13-2007, 10:25 AM	#5
crees! Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 431	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!

02-13-2007, 11:37 AM	#9
philb Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 16	Just finished getting all the 'core CDs' (plus the rather good new 'Love' album) this christmas!

02-13-2007, 12:30 PM	#15
Benton Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 159	Temporary Exclusivity? Comments do not address whether iTunes may carry Beatles exclusively for a limited time.

02-13-2007, 11:49 PM	#22
theveeb Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 16	You people have got to be joking. I predict remastered Beatles ALBUMS are going to be huge! I have no plans to buy DRMed/128kbps downloads though. Smart move by the Beatles not to do an iTunes exclusive, hats off to them if that's true. Paying a royalty on iTunes Store and the iPod to remove any restrictions on what Apple, Inc. can do in the music and entertainment business would be a smart move for both parties, "cha ching!" The royalty would be for rights to the name "Apple" and has absolutely no relation to the Zune/Universal tax.

02-18-2007, 04:44 AM	#26
austinrastaman Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1	The good news is that these cd's will finally be remastered after all these years. Most everything else with a few exceptions is already remastered including the solo works of John, Paul, Ringo and George. It'll be expensive to replace the entire colleciton plus Past Masters Vol. 1 and 2 but it'll be well worth it. Then I will bestow my original collection onto someone who will appreciate it. My entire collection of about 1400 cd's is on an external hard drive at 192 kbps aac vbr. I ripped them all using iTunes and I own a PC for the time being. I've talked two friends into buying a Mac though. I seem very satisfied with this level of quality. And I would feel jipped to pay .99 cents each for 128 kbps aac files like the ones that iTunes sells. And coincidentally, most of the other music services use 160 kbps wma files, which is about the same level of quality. I know on one hand they're trying to make the files small enough to be manageable but the problem could be solved if you could simply have a choice of a few different size options. Ie. apple lossless, 192, etc. Because of this reason I'd rather purchase the cd, even used to have a hard copy that I can rip from to the jukebox program. On the bright side I love the iTunes software and can't wait for the next major upgrade!! I'd like to see matches on more of those cd covers.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode