Yoko Ono: 'Don't hold your breath' for Beatles on Apple's iTunes - Page 3

Of course, I have no insight into this matter; but, I would suppose the dispute is about artistic integrity and not about money. They have enough money. But, they may think of some of their songs as belonging to a greater whole, like the white album. How many people would get Her Majesty or Revolution No. 9 on their own, or even appreciate those songs out of context.

Now for EMI, it might be about money. But, I don't think it is for the others.

Yoko, when can I get my hands on all those "songs" you screamed over?

Arcade Fire's new album is out. So who cares about her and her late husband's band's overplayed music.

We stopped caring years ago. We can not care for another fifty years.

With classic like Beatles, it's better if you just buy the CD or box-set anyway.

You DO know they can simply release the whole friggin album as "Album Only" songs, don't you?

Then I guess they never should have released all those songs on 45s.

Here's the worst part not in the AI report:

"'(Apple CEO) Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy,' Ono, the 77-year-old widow of John Lennon, told Reuters...."

*77-year old* widow of John Lennon? And we were worried if people would still love me, people still need me when I'm sixty four.

Off to gather some rosebuds while I may. Suddenly don't care about my Apple products. No possessions too.

On a specific DRM'ed platform that can't be moved to other music players. And which got a separate, specific licensing deal.

Some of which were only released as singles, at least until some of the later compilation or anthology-type albums started showing up after the Beatles broke up.

My thoughts exactly. Anyone who wants the Beatles already owns the Beatles. Any of the latest generation who wants the Beatles is not going to go out and buy their CDs. If they cannot find it on iTunes or any other digital download service, pray tell, how else will they get it?

Instead of clucking like a chicken during his meeting with Yoko Ono, Steve should mindlessly repeat the phrase, "number nine, number nine, number nine....."

Deal sealed.

Who cares?

For the record, the individual works of Lennon, McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and Yoko Ono are all on iTunes. Yes, Yokos latest album is on iTunes.

My only speculation (as I think has been discussed before) is that Apple Records does not want to sell individual tracks, and Apple iTunes does. The Beatles are of course known for creating large story arcs with their albums, and thus may not be interested in selling individual tracks.

This is nonsense.

I don't know how I became Yoko's defender here, but everything you say is false.

First off, your "heroes" (Lennon and yes, even MacCartney) thought Yoko was a great artist so how can you speak so highly of them and yet simultaneously think their opinions are worthless? Secondly, I'm a two time Art School graduate myself and was *in* Art School when Yoko was doing her conceptual art schtick, and you are completely wrong about how other artists thought of her. She was a well-respected conceptual artist with popular shows and a published author.

She didn't actually need the Beatles to be famous, she already was in her own right.

PS - "Everyman has a woman who loves him" (by Yoko) beats out half the junk on the white album by a country mile. Or, alternatively, if Yoko Ono's wailings are junk, then half the stuff on the white album is again, far worse, and less melodic junk.

So I remember the Beatles while I was young. Quite a few people hailed them as visionary, John as some kind of enlightened avatar of peace - Yoko as his inspiration. And yet all I see is the effects that the intense focus of media scrutiny during a turbulent time period producing the logical results. The boys were talented and well-handled, but hardly the icons of the time that people tend to claim. For those who listened to them and bought into whatever meta-message you carried away from the music - good for you. If it made you a better person - bonus points. But the culture has shifted significantly in the 21st century and nothing is as it was, because it can't be. Witness the attempt to resurrect Woodstock - our culture (right, wrong or indifferent) has moved on. Time to enjoy what we have, because this too shall pass.

Prof - kudos on the creds of course, but Yoko was a popular, not visionary artist. What she did was and is not as impactful as other artists of the same period - but she was very good at taking her talent and media-izing it. Same is true for the Beatles. They were part of the cutting edge that was art during the rise of the media age. I will have to gently and respectfully disagree about most of Yoko's contributions TO the Beatle's music. Her own work stands on its own merits, but there was neither the synergy nor synthesis necessary to do anything other than briefly mesh some of her concepts into their music. You can of course argue that the only art schools worthy of note were East Coast and therefore under her influence perhaps, but as an artist AND a musician of that same period, I did not find her influence as pervasive as you seem to indicate, except in New York.

That's not an excuse. You can sell just an entire album on iTunes without selling individual tracks.

Besides, if they never wanted these songs to be listened to separately, why were they released as singles?


Personally, I'd vote for Rogers and Hammerstein, but I guess you're limiting yourself to one genre.

Only with idiots. Very influential with the idiot lobby, Black Sabbath was. You see the end result of their music in the doddering, should-be-dead illiterate drug addict Ozzy.

That being said, I'd be very curious to see the whole thing on a chart, who wants what. Would the Beatles be trying to have their music copy-protected? Jobs would say no to that. A special "premium" price? Jobs would say no to that, too. Max $1.29 per track. Who's pulling the strings? Who doesn't agree?

It might be that Sony exec. It could be jovial old McCartney, or Harrison's widow. Or it could be Yoko, I suppose. If they spend too much time trying to make the Beatles "special," then the people who would rush forward to buy it all will all be dead, and it will just be old-timey music to anyone under retirement age.

And the RIAA will keep suing people like you for many thousands of dollars. And I will cherish all your sweet, sweet tears. Idiot.

What I find funny/odd about this is that you can buy:

John's, Paul's, George's, Ringo's and Yoko's albums through iTunes. Paul also has some videos available, haven't checked the others.

But, no Beatles.

If Yoko's screeching can in any way be construed as "art" in your mind, then then we'll have to agree to disagree about what does and doesn't constitute art.

I'd submit that the weirder parts of the White Album (vast parts of the second record) are unlistenable precisely because Yoko was trying to pull John Lennon into the whole experimental music thing. It was that direction (and meddling where she didn't belong) which eventually led to the end of the Beatles. Given what the Beatles could have morphed into with Yoko acting as a full partner, I'm actually good with that.

Buy Beatles albums on CD and rip them to your library. That's what I did. No big deal.

I found the Steve Jobs pizza story more relevant and compelling!

Yoko... Who cares?

Yeah, outbid McCartney for the publishing rights but the original tracks and mixes are something else.

Nothing more pathetic than an old rich hippie. Of course this does not surprise me So far all they have done with al their money is plant a tree in someplace called strawberry field .IMAGINE

I think a lot of people want her to die frankly. She's been much of the reasons for the band's breaking up in the first place now she's more than likely the one stonewalling the release of the music onto other formats such as iTunes.

I thought it was funny - in a black kinda way (no offence to to blacks you self-righteous "defender of wholesomeness"
You have no idea how or how much I contribute to society - and probably to you and your family.
Get back in your own hole.

Just an old codger being greedy over music she never made... ahem, I mean bitter.

In my opinion, she doesn't deserve a dime; she's part of the reason the Beatles split up in the first place.

If the others have no problems, and have explicitly stated as much, then she really is on a personal agenda.

The breakup of the Beatles was John Lennon fault. His inability to separate his relationships with women, and his already established art/business partners. This lingering back and forth is a direct consequence of his mismanagement of his own affairs. Then again, John always was an elitist douche, his reasoning and 'ideologies' changed with the weather to fit whatever trend or behavior he was following that day. Sad that he was murdered, but the last decade of Lennon's life, he was pretty oblivious to most things, including his art. Just 'Imagine' all the 'Yesterdays'. Though toward the end he was showing signs of separating with Yoko, it's too bad that he instead left it where his bandmates and children were saddled with this stupid woman.

Speaking of which, Yoko Ono went out of her way to ruin Julian Lennon's career. She's an evil hag who used her position to threaten Julian Lennon from even using father's name in print. I'm no Bealtes fan or apologist, but anyone trying to paint Yoko as a 'poor widow' or even 'relevant artist' in her own right is totally full of it. Her family was super wealthy and she just bought herself a 'modern art' career, she never did anything of consequence before she met John beyond being a heiress who scribbled some crap every now and then.

The problem here is that Yoko's too greedy, McCartney's too drugged out and Ringo's too content jamming with his friends to care about music that's 40-50 years old. They just don't care, and only respond when hit with these questions at a press conference. Do any of them even have computers? I'll bet there's a 90% chance 2 out 3 have never even used one.

I never did like Yoko... now I know why.

Their loss.

Dude, spare us the righteous indignation.

Your post was titled: "Where's Mark David Chapman when you need him.."

How did you expect people to take that? Personally, I thought it was just plain sick. It definitely didn't seem like the kind of thing a "contributor to society" would write.

When the Stones reissued their reworked album recently, Jagger said something that I think is true: he said, roughly, that recording artists never made as much money before or since. Music did help change the culture then. And they, the big artists, got real slices of the deal instead of being treated as peons. Once that era was over, the labels closed up and didn't give breaks that good again.

While I understand Pink Floyd not wanting to have individual songs available, their albums really should be listened to as a whole, I'm curious as to why they sold 45's in the first place - especially the song, Have a Cigar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Fl...graphy#Singles

Really, the keyword these days is adapt or die.

And I do agree with folks here too, I have all the Beatles music I could want on CD and can put into iTunes, don't need EMI to help me with that.

But I do disagree with some of the posts about Yoko, I always liked her as an artist, "Hell in Paradise" is one of my favorite songs. I also don't feel that she was the one force to single-handedly disband the Beatles, there were other "issues" including, the burnout of the band, John Lennon's heroin abuse, Paul's self esteem issues, Epstein's death and George's spiritual issues (come on, seriously, who in their right mind would follow that fake TM guru guy!), Yoko was the catalyst, but man it was coming way before she showed up.

And mentioning Chapman is crass beyond belief, seriously that is sick. I remember the day and the minute I received a call from a friend telling me John Lennon was shot, my first words... is he dead? the answer... yes. My life changed in that moment. ( I grew up with the Beatles, Rubber Soul was the first album I ever owned)

If, and I say "IF" Yoko did something to block Julian's career, that is certainly bad and condemnable, but I haven't yet found evidence of that (reading wikipedia right now)

Yeah. Paul McCartney told him Michael should get into publishing and he turned to Paul and said, "I'm going to get yours" and kind of laughed.

Spare me yours "dude".

Who cares what you thought?

Who cares what anyone else thought?

Who cares about your assessment of my (substantial) contribution to society.

Like I said - it will be a great day when she moves on. She sucked. She was a divisive, untalented waste of paper and digital print. Get a sense of humour - or go back to bible study.

F*&k off.

OK, I just couldn't resist putting my own two cents in here.

I would suspect that many posters here are unaware that the UK and US versions of many of the Beatles original LP's were completely different.

For example, Rubber Soul, in it's current CD formats, whether the latest digitally remastered CDs, or the earlier CD releases, are only the UK versions. They contain songs that I remember being on another LP that was shunned at the time due to it's original artwork of the Beatles posed as butchers, with dolls of babies with limbs and heads removed, mixed in with actual butchers meats. It has often been seen their own protest of war in general and Vietnam it particular. The album was named "Yesterday and Today". When the album cover caused an uproar, capital reissued the album with a more sedate shot of the Beatles posed around large travel trunks.

Yesterday and Today contained Capitals mix of hit singles with other works intended for or already in production as UK albums. This is where the changes in track listings occurs. "Drive My Car" appears here and on the UK Rubber Soul; "I'm Only Sleeping" appears here and also on "Revolver" and so on. The album was released perhaps eight months prior to the US (Capital) version of "Rubber Soul". When Revolver and Rubber Soul were released, it signaled a greater change to those of us who followed the Beatles that they were no longer just a great Rock band. They were more serious studio musicians. More thoughtful, more social commentary, and soon on.

I, for one, was very excited that they digitally remastered the catalogue - right up to the point where I realized they would only be the UK versions. This is a problem for me, as "Rubber Soul" will forever in my mind open with the song "I've Just Seen a Face" - NOT "Drive My Car".

For those that say "Bah. Music is music." in my mind just don't get it. Memories are memories - and that's a good thing. If you are younger and don't think that memory is important, perhaps reading "Animal Farm" is in order.

But it also is about listening to something the way you expect it to be. My argument being it is rather unsettling somehow to put on the remastered Rubber Soul, expecting "I've Just Seen a Face" and getting "Drive My Car".

Change is often a good thing, but for me not in this case. The funny thing was when I showed the difference to my brothers and sisters, they all went "Ah, I couldn't put my finger on it why it didn't sound the same". The fact that the Beatles recorded many of there songs in mono and/or early, crude versions of stereo ( guitar, right channel; voice, left channel - no crossover, no fade) was hard enough to get used to with the first attempts at remastering. The new digitally remastered versions managed to correct that issue by adding depth and clarity without making it sound so odd.

I solved my own problem by purchasing the necessary portion of the digitally remastered catalogue, then using iTunes to reset the tracks to what I once owned on vinyl - problem solved. Having them DRM-free allowed my to create my own discs for my sisters and brothers. Please note that they already owned the same digitally remastered albums. This just allowed them to listen to the CDs with the same tracks as the vinyl versions we once had.

Ah, you must have missed the title of the OP's post? You know the "Where's Mark David Chapman when you need him..." part?

What else could would you imply from that? That the OP wanted Chapman to have tea with Yoko to help her see the error of her ways?

No, wait. It just occurred to me. You don't even know who Mark David Chapman IS, do you?