Yoko Ono: 'Don't hold your breath' for Beatles on Apple's iTunes - Page 2

It would be nice to have the Beatles catalogue come out digitally. I like Yoko Ono, and John LOVED HER. All Beatles fans should LOVE HER as well. People say that "she broke up the Beatles". Thats preposterous. John was looking and searching for a way to grow psychologically, and he found his woman and he rebelled against his band. He didnt do anything to "us". He was a gifted artist and a struggling person. John realized that he could not be the worlds spiritual leader when we had to do our own work and he had to do his own work as well. He let it (the Beatles) go after taking us to places that most of us couldnt reach on our own. He provided a boost to all of us. Like Dylan and Neil Young and a bunch of other musicians he was a great teacher. Yoko Ono is an optimist. Maybe her voice isnt that great, but that just doesnt matter except if its all about "I, me, me, my". And its really not. I think Yoko just wants to get the appropriate money per song out of EMI per play. I think some of us want her to just give the Beatles catalogue away to Apple Computer and the EMI record company. But the fact is that as a business entity, the Beatles are protected from being torn apart and scavanged by giant corporations that would put "Help!" on a Draino commercial and suck it into oblivion. I think that Yoko is doing exactly what should be done. The Beatles is currently a business, not in a horrible sense, but in the sense that it is a business that remains solidly grounded in the principle of what the music represents. The Beatles never went "commercial" or at least tried to uncommercialize themselves. For some of us the uncommercialized themselves to the point of dissolving their group identity. They never sold out completely, or at least they tried to unsell themselves. There is something to be said for that. If the price we have to pay for what the Beatles created, is the inconvenience of not currently having a digitized archive then its ok.

60 years? You need to quit smoking crack dumba$$ So according to your NON MATHEMATICAL skills, you're saying the Beattles formed in 1950....uh...WRONG! Why is it people who don't know sh*t feel they have to post? How old are you anyways? 12?

It's not just Yoko. All of the Beatles survivors and families, as well as the record labels have a say in this and anything they do takes forever. Anything involving the Beatles is immensely complicated. That's why it took so long for the original CDs and finally, last year, for the remasters.

There have been plenty of missed business opportunities for the Beatles because of these complications.

I don't see what the big deal is. Buy the CDs and burn them. That's usually less expensive anyway, especially if you want the entire album. (Any decent retailer will sell them for $12 with generally 14 tracks). And you get higher audio quality that way. And with the exception of the first few albums, the Beatles should be listened to as albums.

Uh, no thanks, I'll pass.

I can never get beyond her caterwauling that wrecked some of Lennon's albums.

And, of course, it turns out Macca's instincts about her were 100% correct.

That's not quite right. Publishing rights ARE the songwriting rights. Those are owned by the publisher and royalties are generally statutory (at least in the U.S.). Performance rights, sometimes referred to as "needle drop" rights, are owned by the labels.

When you use a song, the label has to be paid for the performance and the publisher has to be paid for the song. If an artist records a new version of someone else's song, they pay only the publisher.

Michael Jackson's company owned the publishing rights to most of the Beatles catalog.

As a side note, one of the reasons why the early Beatles UK releases generally contained 14 tracks and the U.S. releases only contained 12 is because the statutory payments were based on each track in the U.S., but divided among all the tracks in the UK. (Another reason is because American practice was to cut the vinyl masters at much higher levels which required more space.)

All my Beatles albums are on Vinyl, and I haven't listened to them in 35 years, at least. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

I'm in the same situation. I can remember each album coming out and I had them all and played them to death. I bought some of them again in CD form in the 80's and 90's and played them to death as well, but it's too late now. I'm not remotely interested in listening to the Beatles at this stage and wouldn't buy them if they were available.

How many people remember in the 70's when we were all nostalgic for 50's rock, or even the big band music from the 40's? A lot of people thought that was reaching too far into the past and "who cares about music from that long ago" when there was "rock and roll." Today, the early Beatles music is roughly 45 years old!

Listening to old Beatles music today is like some old fogie in the 60's with a penchant for listening to Rudy Vallee or Enrico Caruso from the 20's for cripes sake.

There is so much fantastic new music out there today you couldn't even listen to it all if you took all day every day to do it. Why anyone cares this much about the Beatles when their music is freely available on CD's everywhere you look I just don't understand. They were great yes, fantastic in fact, but that was a long long time ago. There is nothing about them being on a digital format that will make their music sound any better. It was recorded mostly before stereo even became available and has been processed to death just to make it sound half-decent anyway.

The only thing I like about this statement today is that it seems to me that Yoko is finally owning up to being the cause of the situation. Up until now everyone suspected her but had no evidence whatsoever. Her personal statement of dislike for the deal is revealing to say the least.

This is sacrilege and a complete lie, but of course you knew that and only posted it so someone would respond like this.

Black Sabbath was a great band but on the musical genius scale Lennon is at least a thousand rungs higher than Ozzy.

"Season of Glass" was a great album, and she wrote half the songs on Double Fantasy which are all great IMO.

I don't understand why people aren't able to separate Yoko's annoying personality from her music which is actually quite good. I always thought it was plain old racism disguised as something else, but it sure has legs given that these kind of visceral reactions can still be seen to her all this time later. Probably when she dies of old age there will still be some who come to shake their fists over her grave.

I'm with the other poster. If you loved the Beatles, and loved John Lennon, then you should love music, and see music as art. This is what Yoko's music is all about.

If you love the Beatles but hated Yoko Ono and her music, then maybe all the Beatles were to you was a bunch of catchy tunes in the early 60's.

To prevent further distress, switch to adoring the Beach Boys. Their songs are even catchier and you can avoid that kind of "art music" altogether.

Odds that "we're not very happy about" how much we'll get paid?

I'm forever amazed at how much the legacy of The Beatles has been spoiled by the misbehavior of its parasites.

AMEN! I'm with you!

Beatles are hypocrites!

"You never give me your money, you only give me your funny papers and in the middle of negotiations you break down"!

Now, that has been taken to new heights by The Beatles, et al Yoko Ono!

Also, I see where the "Pet Yokie" needed help from the "Man" in keeping in jail Mark David Chapman, speaking out against his parole but yet, had no trouble speaking out against the "Man" when it came to issues like "Give Peace a Chance" so let's sleep in a bed for a week protesting Vietnam?! Ha!!

All we are saying is give Mark a chance!

He's not a criminal, mentally not right, but not a criminal. Another blatant Liberal philosophical oxymoron being demonstrated!

Oh and don't get me started on 'Sir Paulie'! Hey Paulie, I'm not going to need you and I'm not going to feed you when your sixty-four! In fact, get a physical Paulie, you may have the onset of Dementia because you seem not right in the head lately! You know what's good for the mind Paulie? Exercising the brain Paulie. Go read a book Paulie. When's the last time your sorry ass has been to a library? Huh Paulie?! Oh, and President Bush has a Bachelor of Arts from Yale and the Master of Business Administration from Harvard and while at Harvard graduated with a better GPA then the so called intellect, John F. Kerry! So Paulie, if one were to examine your Biography of your education, what would they find? A novel, a short story or a sticky note? I think it would be the latter! And while I won't take away from your musical genius and God given talent because it is before us, for all the world to see. But when you take away that aspect of your life, what would be left? What other accomplishment? What would your biography be like? Me?! I'm no one special. Then again, I'm not the one who is the buffoon, knocking a highly accomplished individual and former Head of State, and at of all places, a White House sponsored awards ceremony where it was rather crass and ill mannered, but would one expect any less from you Paulie?

Let us see, President Bush: college educated, BA and Masters, learned how to fly jets, served in the National Guard, Businessman, Governor, President, Humanitarian Spokesman, to mention a few highlights of his life... what might yours look like, Sir Paulie: Great Musician... and... and... any awards, accomplishments and accolades were derived because of being a great musician, that's about it. So think twice Sir Paulie and don't open that uneducated, ignorant hole in your face unless it is to belt out a song because that's about what you're good for!! Okay Paulie!

BEATLES on iTunes, No Sale Here!!!


Damn, That Felt Good!

Now if I can only get that Bastard, 'Sir Paulie', to read it and have the ability in person to say to Paulie's face with regards to my sentiments of him, "NO APOLOGIES HERE, LOSER"!
!
!
!

It's no bother to me. I ripped my entire Beatles collection already.

Wasn't there something awhile back that The Beatles' lawyers were insisting on some unrealistic assurances from Apple about compensation for any music found in the wild that was copied illegally? Or am I dreaming.

The lack of their music on iTunes has been the greatest FUBAR that any band has made in this new digital world. Millions throw away because of a lack of an understanding of the sales (and revenue) potential.

Or is it Yoko who is holding up the arrangements - holding out for a larger percentage?

Hmmm, are you !@#$%!$@#@$#!% ???????

I've a huge music collection, including all the old Beatles music, but I've not even put the Beatles stuff into iTunes. It's old; dated; and musically speaking, not very sophisticated. The Beatles day has long passed, and honestly, I think their catalog is of more interest to historians than your average music listener these days.

Speaking not just as a listener, but also as a musician, music has moved on. And you know what? I'm glad. I would much rather listen to Joe Satriani than John or George; Stuart Hamm than Paul; and lord knows almost every drummer on the planet is better than poor old Ringo. And the singing... simplistic and again, dated. Plus, there is very little worthwhile (non-pop) output from the individuals post-Beatles; they really were more together than they were apart, all hype aside.

So while the ongoing feud is interesting to watch, I can't say I have any stake in it, other than to observe that ol' Yoko and the crew are likely to push this so far as to work themselves out of a significant amount of income. Oh well. It's not like they matter. Even the press is just reporting this out of habit now -- I bet most people who buy music from iTunes actually have no idea what is in the Beatles catalog at this point in time, nor are they likely to care once they hear some of it. Simplistic recording, basic harmonies, 60's sentiments... they sound like a garage band.

My daughter is 14. She "discovered" the Beatles recently. So, there you go.

There are entire generations that discover "new" music, and fall in love with groups like the Beatles. It'll happen with each generation.

So, the short answer is:
Beatles on iTunes = new mountains of money pouring into their respective estates.

nothing to see here

No digital catalog for The Beatles? Didn't they release their remasters on an apple-shaped hard drive in FLAC?

I never heard that story. It's pretty hilarious. I guess they thought that if they didn't put a free version on Voyager that maybe the aliens would buy it?


Sorry, but you've got it backwards. It's really funny how far the Apple-haters will stretch the truty to try to make their points. On iTunes, you can buy entire albums or individual songs. Apple is happy to sell you either. In fact, I believe that they allow some bands to have their music available ONLY by entire albums.

In any event, it is the Beatles (whoever is making the decision for them, anyway) who dictates what you can listen to - anything but the Beatles. Apple isn't restricting anything.


My daughter is the same way. She ONLY buys music on iTunes (she does occasionally get a CD as a gift, but when it's her own money, it's iTunes). As time goes on, her expenditures will be much greater. She has also discovered the Beatles, but obviously hasn't purchased any of their music.

Actually, that's the sad part. If the catalog were released on iTunes, there would be massive sales, just due to publicity, 'something new', etc. Without it, people will just continue to rip & trade.
To quote the closing lines from another British product, ... 'Maddness... simply Maddness'.

(BTW, I know LOTS of kids amongst whom the Beatles are really popular. Quality survives.)

Right, because you'll have so much more luck walking into a bookstore and trying to buy just the first and last chapters of the bestseller of choice, or paying two bucks to just watch your favorite excerpts from Avatar at the local multiscreen.... There's a difference between listen and buy (unless you're Prince, didn't he release a cd as a single track [as did, say, Miles Davis and many fine prog rock bands]), and while no artist can control what you listen too, they can at least control what they see as the integrity of their own work. Yes I had to buy a whole book just to get the one Elmore Leonard story I wanted, but so it goes. I don't have to read the rest.

A book and an album are not the same thing but I'd say that some albums are meant to be listened the whole way through to get the true experience but that is rare today with current artists.

As for Yoko, apparently she's can't stop breaking up anything that has to do with The Beatles.

um, no

He never said that he wished her dead. Don't put words in peoples mouths.

I don't care if the songs are ever on iTunes, but I DO care that I can't buy them anywhere without buying physical media. I stopped collecting CDs a decade ago, and I'm not willing to make an exception even for the Beatles.

It seems I'm an idiot then. I have no problem with, for example, Pink Floyd only wanting me to buy the whole album. Wish You Were Here for example only really makes sense as a whole body of work. Have A Cigar is a bizzarre song if not contained within the context of the album. If you see musicians as artists (and I acknowledge that many are not, they are just singers), then I think you need to accept that they want their work to be seen/heard in a certain way.


Hmmmm, I kind of agree with you here, but disagree as well! The problem I have with saying their day has passed is that would also imply that Mozarts day has passed, and I just can't accept that. I think musicians who really moved a genre of music along will always have relevance musically as well as historically.

You are right that a lot of the early stuff is pretty uninteresting, and there are musicians out there that are much better instrumentalists than they were (though despite being a great player, when I saw Satriani a year or so ago I have to say I've never seen such a pompous tosser on stage!), but as songwriters I think they still have merit for their later work as a group.

In terms of whether or not it matters their stuff not being on iTunes, I suspect it does not. I think I read that the last re-mastered release didn't actually sell that well (if anyone has any reference to that please feel free to post - I'm going on memory here), and I would think most people that are going to own their music already do. The constant re-mastering and format tinkering with music offers little to the consumer. With pop music especially, there is not a vast difference in sound quality from one release to another in my opinion.

What a wench. I hope in 10 years everyone forgets they exist, only to see her hanging out on the lawn outside 1 Infinite Loop, waiting for CEO Tim Cook to enter, begging for him put her songs on iTunesX, only to hear him respond, "Where were you 10 years ago, third-rate artist?"

It's amazing what some people will do to justify theft of someone else' property and actually boast about it on a public forum.
Theft is theft, no matter what you are stealing. You are obviously comfortable stealing music and have been for some time, by your statement. I wonder what else you are comfortable stealing?

Yoko Ono-how old is this hobag? 100?

If you are a musician, then Lennon/McCartney have to arguably be the best songwriting duo of their time. The Beatles harmonization was definitely revolutionary for its time. There is no doubt that Sgt. Peppers was revolutionary, it moved the bar from a recording perspective for the entire industry -- from the day it was released.

I don't see where that means I have to "embrace an inner Yoko" or whatever it is that you are driving at, nothing she called "art" was remotely in the same league. You'd be hardpressed to find anyone in an art school who would put an "art" label on Yoko's tonedeaf dying banshee wailing that showed up on the odd solo John Lennon album; let alone in the real world.

Frankly, if Macca breaking up the Beatles prevented Yoko's caterwauling from appearing on a Beatles album, I wholeheartedly support that decision. iTunes, or no.

Yaaaawn....\

Mommy's only looking for her hand in the snow.

It's a funny position, because they were so revolutionary in their time. Seems like they are missing out.

How would having the Beatles in iTunes being dictating what you can listen to?
If anything, NOT having the Beatles in iTunes is dictating what you can listen to, since you can only listen to what is available.

Of course they do.
They have been exclusive to Verizon for digital download sales for 3 years now.

"My model for business is the Beatles." - Steve Jobs 60 Minutes interview 2008

http://cnettv.cnet.com/60-minutes-st...-50004696.html


Who's gonna break it to Steve that Apple's business model is based on a bunch of hypocrites? Not me.

Sadly, I predict that Apple Records will miss the boat. There is still strong interest and Love for The Beatles in the marketplace and an Apple Inc./Beatles deal is a 'magical' match... for now. I think that by the time they catch up to the rest of us, we will shrug and say, 'that's nice.'

Idiots suits run Apple Records and EMI. I wish the the remaining Beatles and the two widows would step and and make this happen.

That's new. Just last year there was nothing.