Beatles on iTunes set for 2008

[AppleInsider]

The widow of Fab Four guitarist George Harrison has revealed that the music group's catalog should be available by next year.

Olivia Harrison told Reuters on Friday that the work of her late husband and his bandmates was finally on a fast track to music stores like Apple Inc.'s iTunes now that multiple artistic and legal hurdles have been tackled.

"We just have a few things to work out elsewhere," she said.

Though hopeful for a release before the end of 2007, she added that the sheer amount of work might push the online listing to 2008.

The Beatles' music label, Apple Corps, had not only to settle its naming dispute with iTunes operator Apple Inc. but to finish the Cirque du Soleil show Love, remaster the original recordings for better quality, and create a deluxe presentation to revitalize interest.

"That's a big job," Harrison said. "That means you have to go back through all the archives and find great photographs and really give a nice package to the fans."

The retirement of the pioneering Apple Corps manager Neil Aspinall was also said to have contributed to the acceleration of the project, as new label head Jeff Jones intended to "pick up the pace" on transferring Beatles albums to the online medium.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Ireland]

2008.. these Beatles can go shove it as far as I'm concerned. They obviously don't realise they are encouraging piracy of their music. Now get George Harrison on iTunes pronto! Ok so I commented without restraint, and didn't read the article, but you can only take some much of these Beatles stories.

[toneloco28]

Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.

[JeffDM]

Are they trying to release it in one batch? That seems unecessary unless they are trying to make it a bargain bundle like they did with U2 and a few others.

[nevenmrgan]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Though hopeful for a release before the end of 2007, she added that the sheer amount of work might push the online listing to 2008.

"That's a big job," Harrison said. "That means you have to go back through all the archives and find great photographs and really give a nice package to the fans."

The brain-aching irony here is that the Beatles managed to release SIX ALBUMS in one year (1966).

[jmadlena]

Originally Posted by toneloco28

Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.

I think some people are forgetting that:

a) Two of the Beatles have passed, and therefore they can no longer 'tak[e] themselves entirely too seriously,' or slow down the progress of the digital distribution of their music, and

b) They are still completely relevant to the landscape of today's music. They made music what it is today, and if we forget about them, and others like them, we will have a music dead space like that of the 90's. I for one wish music would move back towards that Beatlesque style; a large portion of mainstream music is entirely talentless. And lastly,

c) We ought to be grateful that they made their music.

Long live Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and God rest John Lennon, and George Harrison's souls.

[John the Geek]

Originally Posted by jmadlena

Long live Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and God rest John Lennon, and George Harrison's souls.

What, no long live Yoko Ono?

[tarbh]

Originally Posted by toneloco28

Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.

Are you on something? The Beatles are pop music. They are as relevant to music today as Da Vinici is to art.
These releases will be great. Jeff Jones has looked after the reissues and remasters of everyone at Sony/Legacy from Bob Dylan to AC/DC, he just started this job and needs some time to get it all together.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by toneloco28

Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.

"It was twenty years ago today,
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play
They've been going in and out of style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile
So may I introduce to you
The act you'vd known for all these years
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band...."

'It was 40 years ago today that "Sgt. Pepper" was released in Great Britain (June 2, 1967 in US stores). By most accounts, it stands as the finest most groundbreaking work created by the fab four and producer, George Martin. As their masterpiece, it also stands as the masterpiece of pop music.

For many American teenagers coming of age that year, "Sgt. Pepper" was a life altering experience, it's release a historically significant moment.'

That came from my hometown's newspaper's "Daily Break" section. I live in a modest city in America. It's not big like New York City or LA and it's not the sticks either, and I can't speak for the New York Times or the LA Times, but my little newspaper took note of this date and it's historical significance regarding The Beatles and their work on "Sgt. Pepper", even if it was a 'puff piece' that was issued for papers across this nation, if they cared, to run it or not.

I can't really recall a write up of any band past, like Elvis or The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd or present, take your pick, that my newspaper or any paper pay homage to a significant piece of their work and the profound effect it had at the time and for the future.

Not bad for somebody who is 'hardly relevant these days and that they ought to be grateful that somebody still cares", I know you're not necessarily ripping The Beatles, and you complimented and acknowledge them as musicians, their body of work and their status as pop icons, but I think you are wrong with your comments towards the end of your post. Just my .02

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

"It was twenty years ago today,
Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play
They've been going in and out of style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile
So may I introduce to you
The act you'vd known for all these years
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band...."

'It was 40 years ago today that "Sgt. Pepper" was released in Great Britain (June 2, 1967 in US stores). By most accounts, it stands as the finest most groundbreaking work created by the fab four and producer, George Martin. As their masterpiece, it also stands as the masterpiece of pop music.

For many American teenagers coming of age that year, "Sgt. Pepper" was a life altering experience, it's release a historically significant moment.'

That came from my hometown's newspaper's "Daily Break" section. I live in a modest city in America. It's not big like New York City or LA and it's not the sticks either, and I can't speak for the New York Times or the LA Times, but my little newspaper took note of this date and it's historical significance regarding The Beatles and their work on "Sgt. Pepper", even if it was a 'puff piece' that was issued for papers across this nation, if they cared, to run it or not.

I can't really recall a write up of any band past, like Elvis or The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd or present, take your pick, that my newspaper or any paper pay homage to a significant piece of their work and the profound effect it had at the time and for the future.

Not bad for somebody who is 'hardly relevant these days and that they ought to be grateful that somebody still cares", I know you're not necessarily ripping The Beatles, and you complimented and acknowledge them as musicians, their body of work and their status as pop icons, but I think you are wrong with your comments towards the end of your post. Just my .02

Agreed!

I won a single of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", back when they first came out. It was a simple question, "How many species of beetles are there in the world? I was thirteen. What a strong influence they were on everyone, at that time, and even now.

The importance of the Beatles can't be overestimated.

[El Capitan]

Originally Posted by toneloco28

Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.

The day the Beatles become irrelevant will be the day the world ends.

You are pretty ignorant.

[toneloco28]

Originally Posted by El Capitan

The day the Beatles become irrelevant will be the day the world ends.

You are pretty ignorant.

Calm down chief!

HAHA! Okay, let me clarify my position on the Beatles. I am fully aware of the "impact" they had on pop music and the fanaticism displayed by their fans; both past and present. I am also fully within my rights to discern how relevant or influential they are to "myself" compared to other artist of the same period who I feel were just as talented. Music is highly subjective so I'm not going to get into an argument over semantics.

What my main point was, while obviously not communicated well, was that from my experiences the Beatles have a history of acting like the world is indebted unto them; and being quite resistant to change. Lest not forget that they sued Apple, along with numerous other companies, over what I consider to be patently ridiculous allegations. They are all either presently or posthumously obscenely wealthy, but strike me as somewhat money hungry. The dudes aren't curing cancer or otherwise some noteworthy history altering event, so when I say they should be grateful; it is because as musicians to stand the test of time as they have done, is both an enormous achievement and a PRIVILEGE. They are obviously "relevant" in a historical context and justifiably so, but it could be nothing for people to stop caring about them, and it seems they don't respect that. Just imho.

Anyways, the comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek so sorry for offending some of you lmao.

[icibaqu]

i actually think harrison's wife's point is a good one. if one day suddenly the beatles catalogue of music was available for download with no real fanfair, then who would really give a crap. it'd be like *browse**browse**browse**"hey the beatles are online. cool.**browse**browse**. . .

that's entirely different than remastered music with all new artwork and photos, some videos that come bundled for download and maybe the chance to win something.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by tarbh

Are you on something? The Beatles are pop music. They are as relevant to music today as Da Vinici is to art.

In both circumstances, they are history and mainly interesting from a historical perspective. Their works have been available for some time, though one longer than the other, but the point is that Beatles works are two generations old now. Those works are known, static and the people that want their personal copies of those works, probably have them already and might be happy enough with the CD, and may not be interested in re-buying on a fourth or fifth format. Even with the (second?) remaster, I wonder how many remaining Beatles fans will upgrade?

These releases will be great. Jeff Jones has looked after the reissues and remasters of everyone at Sony/Legacy from Bob Dylan to AC/DC, he just started this job and needs some time to get it all together.

Why did it take so long to secure this person and get him started? I thought this work started over a year ago.

[ascii]

Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.

Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by ascii

Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.

Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.

I wouldn't bet your shirt on the number of over 50s Apple sell to including iPods, music and Macs. We are a force to be reckoned with

[kukito]

Originally Posted by ascii

Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.

Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.

Go to iTunes Plus. 11 of the top 20 downloads are Paul McCartney songs. However, if people want Beatles would it kill them to go to Amazon, buy the CD and rip the songs?

[Flounder]

Originally Posted by ascii

Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.

Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.

Trust me, plenty of people under 50 care.

[jonco]

I'm over 50 and for me the Beatles were closer to top 40- than the bands I picked as my world changers: The Who and The Kinks. I played in a few abands in the mid 60's and early 70's. I don't remember any local band (and there were a lot of them) that tried to look or sound like George or John, but there were a lot of Pete wannabes. Hey, it's only music... And it's only made to dance to and shouldn't be taken to heart...

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by ascii

Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.

Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.

I'm well under 50 (Gen Xer) and I care. I'm looking forward to cherry-picking the hell out of their catalog, and making some interesting Beatles-only playlists. Though to be fair, they are one of the few groups who put out albums where almost every song was good.

Don't kid yourself... when they hit iTunes, their tracks will sell, sell, sell. Boomers will have some gaps in their Beatles' collections they'll want to fill economically and conveniently, and some younger folks will dload their stuff out of curiousity, to see what the 'big deal' is.

Ironically, a whole new generation might be turned on to their music to some extent. History could repeat itself a bit...

.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by kukito

However, if people want Beatles would it kill them to go to Amazon, buy the CD and rip the songs?

No, it wouldn't kill them. It'd just be more expensive in some cases, that's all.

.

[paprochy]

Originally Posted by toneloco28

Calm down chief!

HAHA! Okay, let me clarify my position on the Beatles. I am fully aware of the "impact" they had on pop music and the fanaticism displayed by their fans; both past and present. I am also fully within my rights to discern how relevant or influential they are to "myself" compared to other artist of the same period who I feel were just as talented. Music is highly subjective so I'm not going to get into an argument over semantics.

What my main point was, while obviously not communicated well, was that from my experiences the Beatles have a history of acting like the world is indebted unto them; and being quite resistant to change. Lest not forget that they sued Apple, along with numerous other companies, over what I consider to be patently ridiculous allegations. They are all either presently or posthumously obscenely wealthy, but strike me as somewhat money hungry. The dudes aren't curing cancer or otherwise some noteworthy history altering event, so when I say they should be grateful; it is because as musicians to stand the test of time as they have done, is both an enormous achievement and a PRIVILEGE. They are obviously "relevant" in a historical context and justifiably so, but it could be nothing for people to stop caring about them, and it seems they don't respect that. Just imho.

Anyways, the comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek so sorry for offending some of you lmao.

Two things

1. "The Beatles" never sued Apple, Apple corps. sued Apple. There is a difference you know.

2. John and George aren't doing much to help the world with their money, but I suppose we can excuse them seeing how they are dead. Though John did a lot in the period between the beatles breakup until his death. Paul McCartney though "obscenely" rich as you put it does in fact use his wealth to help many causes. One of them being the issue of landmines.

It's kind of a bitter poormans mentality that you come across with. The truth is that many (though not all) rich people earned their money fairly and usually give back A LOT to the world.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by paprochy

It's kind of a bitter poormans mentality that you come across with. The truth is that many (though not all) rich people earned their money fairly and usually give back A LOT to the world.

I'd change that "usually" to sometimes.

Yeah, there are some very philanthropic rich folks out there. Heck, even bad 'ol Bill Gates deserves much props here (though I think Melinda's the one who pushed him that way). But I've known plenty of rich folks who could give two sh*** about the poor or disadvantaged. In their particular ideology, poverty is wholly self-inflicted, and "those people" deserve whatever they get.

In the end, rich people are people... some good, some very bad, many in-between.

(though, from my experience in door-to-door charity work and as a 'pizza delivery guy' in college, middle class people actually tip and donate best, especially in proportion to income)

.

[JimDreamworx]

Remastering Beatles tracks so we can download them in a format that is inferior to CD?

What's the point?

It appears the comments about the legal aspects far outweigh any interest in the quality of the music.

[Coolie]

What "sheer amount of work"? I could rip, encode, and upload the entire Beatles catalog in one day using a four-year-old PC. It might take me an additional day to scan album art, but really.

There must be more legal-wrangling going on behind the scenes, because there's no way they should need until next year to get this done.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Coolie

What "sheer amount of work"? I could rip, encode, and upload the entire Beatles catalog in one day using a four-year-old PC. It might take me an additional day to scan album art, but really.

There must be more legal-wrangling going on behind the scenes, because there's no way they should need until next year to get this done.

Sure, I could do it too.

But, is your encoder as sophisticated as theirs? Are you encoding it at either 24 or 32 bits, at high rates, such as 96, or possibly 192 KBs, and only after listening to each song carefully time after time, correcting, and eliminating noise, and other problems, bringing it down to what we will use?

Are you looking at the Masters, and reworking the balances for the new encoded medium?

Are you searching the archives for the images they are? Are you going over the legal difficulties of getting all of the copyright holders to sign?

Just how would you do it?

[davidzLA]

Originally Posted by JimDreamworx

Remastering Beatles tracks so we can download them in a format that is inferior to CD?

What's the point?

Seconded.

I'm a fan, but what's so life-changing about having Beatles added to the iTunes Store? All the music is currently for sale elsewhere, not locked in a vault. Most of it's been constantly available in then-current format for 40+ years. I'm sure they'll do a tidy business, but geez. If I'm that hot for it I've imported it already.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by davidzLA

Seconded.

I'm a fan, but what's so life-changing about having Beatles added to the iTunes Store? All the music is currently for sale elsewhere, not locked in a vault. Most of it's been constantly available in then-current format for 40+ years. I'm sure they'll do a tidy business, but geez. If I'm that hot for it I've imported it already.

Let's see.

Almost all of the 2.5+ billion songs that Apple has sold over iTunes is available elsewhere, namely CD's, though some may be only available on vinyl.

Going by what you and Dreamworx are saying, none of that should have been encoded at a lower quality to sell over iTunes, because it's available elsewhere.

And so, your point is?

[davidzLA]

Originally Posted by melgross

And so, your point is?

... that it's as compelling as any other of those 2.5 billion other downloads.

Beatles music is great, but it's not rare. There's nothing to wait for, really, except the next round of higher-quality remasters. I'm sure they'll be one of the top-selling bands on iTunes... but it's just adding a distribution channel, like discount stores or music retail.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by davidzLA

... that it's as compelling as any other of those 2.5 billion other downloads.

Beatles music is great, but it's not rare. There's nothing to wait for, really, except the next round of higher-quality remasters. I'm sure they'll be one of the top-selling bands on iTunes... but it's just adding a distribution channel, like discount stores or music retail.

That is the point. That they are adding a new distribution channel. Apple is now the forth largest music distributor in the country, or is it the third?

It's also the fastest growing.

CD sales were down 22% this year. 22%!!! We're not talking a few percent a year anymore. The handwriting is on the wall, so to speak.

Online is required now.

[davidzLA]

Originally Posted by melgross

Online is required now.

I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?

Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by davidzLA

I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?

Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.

Well, we'll just have to wait to see, right?

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by davidzLA

Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?

I don't know about "desperately", but there's certainly plenty of people who want Beatles music but prefer the convenience and lower cost of iTunes

Also consider that Jobs is going to push it pretty hard once it does happen. The Beatles are his favorite band, and Apple is named for the Beatle's record label (Apple Corps). If you thought Apple promoted U2 pretty hard, you ain't seen anything yet.

I don't see the pent-up demand.

Don't worry, you will.

.

[ooza227]

I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?

Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.

word...

[schillid]

BEATLES + ITUNES : Two Apples

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by schillid

BEATLES + ITUNES : Two Apples

Was it necessary to find every thread from over the past year that had anything at all to do with the Beatles and post a link to an **admittedly** spoofed youtube video?!?!

D

P.S. I guess I can answer my own question with "Yes DaveGee, schillid thought it was necessary"

[davidzLA]

Originally Posted by melgross

Well, we'll just have to wait to see, right?

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Also consider that Jobs is going to push it pretty hard once it does happen. The Beatles are his favorite band, and Apple is named for the Beatle's record label (Apple Corps).

Don't worry, you will.

I'm pretty confident there will be a major media promotion, with strong opening sales and that the Beatles will settle in as one of the, if not the top catalog artists available.

When I say pent-up demand, I mean in the sense that people have really been waiting for this. If Apple announced they would have exclusivity for the long out of print Buckingham Nicks album, or US distribution rights for Disney's Song of the South, that's what I mean by pent-up demand. There was a years-long delay in releasing the soundtrack to Heavy Metal on CD. Queen changed US labels in the US in the early 90's and so there was a period where their albums were not readily available except on import, then they popped with the re-releases and Wayne's World name checking. They would have to pull Beatles CDs from sale for a few years to approach that. (Obviously the size of the fan bases are not comparable.) But anybody today who wants to listen to the Beatles in iTunes can do it, tonight. It's the disconnect between "I must have it" and "I must wait for it on iTunes" that I don't get.

It will be a big deal, because the Beatles and Apple and iTunes are big deals. But I don't think it will have the same impact as say the release of the albums on CD in the 80s because of the lower quality of AAC compared to the lossless file. When the audio quality on downloads surpasses that standard I could see the similar mass album re-purchasing again.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by davidzLA

I'm pretty confident there will be a major media promotion, with strong opening sales and that the Beatles will settle in as one of the, if not the top catalog artists available.

Agreed.

When I say pent-up demand, I mean in the sense that people have really been waiting for this. If Apple announced they would have exclusivity for the long out of print Buckingham Nicks album, or US distribution rights for Disney's Song of the South, that's what I mean by pent-up demand.

Are you sure? Have you actually listened to Buckingham Nicks? Its not a great album by any stretch, and I say that as a Fleetwood Mac fan (some tracks are so schmaltzy as to be actively painful to listen to). I have a hard time visualizing a lot of people waiting breathlessly for it, but I guess there's a few fanatics who'll buy anything.

But anybody today who wants to listen to the Beatles in iTunes can do it, tonight.

Are you referring to internet radio via iTunes? Because there's only one Beatles album available for sale on iTunes currently, the one they did very early on with Tony Sheridan.

It will be a big deal, because the Beatles and Apple and iTunes are big deals. But I don't think it will have the same impact as say the release of the albums on CD in the 80s because of the lower quality of AAC compared to the lossless file. When the audio quality on downloads surpasses that standard I could see the similar mass album re-purchasing again.

Well, you agree that it WILL be a big deal, so I guess we're just quibbling over whether it will be a REALLY BIG DEAL, or just merely a BIG DEAL (or something in between).

I don't think that's something to really worry about, more like something to sit back and watch happen, and be pleasantly surprised either way.

.

[davidzLA]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Are you sure? Have you actually listened to Buckingham Nicks?

I've never heard it actually (I'm a FM fan more in the Rumours + Greatest Hits sense) just that it's one of those legendary unavailable albums that a fan can't just go out and buy, compared to Beatles albums. Of course, there are a lot more casual Beatles fans than hard-core 'Mac fans.

Are you referring to internet radio via iTunes? Because there's only one Beatles album available for sale on iTunes currently, the one they did very early on with Tony Sheridan.

No, just that Beatles CDs can be be imported by the user, and if a big enough fan presumably the user has those. Me personally - I'm looking forward to remastered albums. I'd rather buy the CDs however so I have more flexibility with computers, playback, etc. with high quality files than buying the 128 or 256 kbps file at a similar price.

Well, you agree that it WILL be a big deal, so I guess we're just quibbling over whether it will be a REALLY BIG DEAL, or just merely a BIG DEAL (or something in between).

I'm sure the commercials will be SPECTACULAR...

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by davidzLA

I've never heard it actually

Trust me, aside from one or two tracks, you don't want to.

No, just that Beatles CDs can be be imported by the user

From CD. Yeah, that's a given. The point is, for purchasing Beatles music, iTunes has an advantage in convenience and price over CD. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, i.e. billions of songs sold.

I'm sure the commercials will be SPECTACULAR...

Right you are. I'm sure they'll have some clever angle. The only question is, will the commercials be merely good, or 'iconically' good... a commercial you'll remember for years, like the 'Mean Joe Greene' Coke commercial or Apple's '1984' ad?

.