The Beatles have to wake up and realize that it's going to be 2010 soon, not 1970. And this USB gimmick would have been cute maybe, what, 8 years ago? Today it's all about digital downloads. And now that iTunes LP exists to provide bells and whistles to the media buffs and audiophiles out there, there's no reason why The Beatles couldn't rake in huge $$$ by going digital.
Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.
Original Star Wars or nothing.
The newer, CGI-laden blue-tinted versions are horrible.
Endless? I thought the Beatles didn't have a rerelease since the mid-80's and from what I understand, the new version does a very good job of restoring the music with technology that wasn't available in the 80's. Waiting 25 years to release a new version doesn't strike me as "endless re-releases", there even were a lot of fans begging for a restoration. Hard to see where the comparison is valid here against someone else that might have done different packaging every five years.
The Anthology doesn't count as a shameless money grab? George added stuff, released stuff that hadn't been seen before and it's a shameless money grab but the Beatles do the same thing and since it's music they get a free pass? They release this stuff because they know the fans will buy it, and they do. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that but let's call a spade a spade here.
The newer, CGI-laden blue-tinted versions are horrible.
I've got an original version on DVD.
Let's ignore the changing of scenes and who shoots first and if Luke whines or not (although George did go back and change that one) let's just look at the special effects "fix up" in the star wars movie. You're vehemently against the updating of the CGI of Star Wars to reflect what George had originally wanted it to be but didn't have the technology to do it but the Beatles going back and updating their recordings and do what they can to make it sound as much like what they had intended is viewed as artistic?
I don't like the added scenes in SW either but saying updating the CGI is any different than digitizing and perfecting the original recording is any different you're just lying to yourself. Both are processes that allow the original artist to bring their vision to the masses in such a way as they had originally wanted, or at least as close to it as possible. (added scenes excluded, although, there is documentation that Lucas wanted those scenes but just didn't have the CGI or $ to get them in there so if we're just talking about the artists vision...)
EDIT: I guess here's the rub - in the world of music the artist is always viewed as owning the music, it doesn't belong to the fans but in the world of cinema once you release something it then belongs to the fans and you aren't allowed to touch it. Double standard perhaps?
EDIT 2: Also, if you're a purist why in the world do you have anything on DVD? You should have it on LaserDisc
TAnd now that iTunes LP exists to provide bells and whistles to the media buffs and audiophiles out there...
There's really nothing that iTunes LP does for audiophiles. Sure, it provides artwork and such, but the audio quality is still crap (to an audiophile). Have you tried listening to iTunes Plus quality digital music on a good audio system? It's fair at best.
So they're selling them on USB keys in unprotected format, but not on a (reasonably) secure store? What have they been smoking... (don't answer that...)
They have been smoking...dried apple stems of course!
Smells just like you know what, freak out your parents!
There's really nothing that iTunes LP does for audiophiles. Sure, it provides artwork and such, but the audio quality is still crap (to an audiophile). Have you tried listening to iTunes Plus quality digital music on a good audio system? It's fair at best.
Not so much audiophiles as it is for hardcore fans. I hoped that the audio would be lossless from a master copy that exceeds the CD quality. Alas, it wasn’t.
If selling individual songs doesn’t appeal to Apple Records they can use iTunes LP. Some nice artwork and maybe even some previously unreleased video clips and it could be another major revenue stream for music people already own. Hell, I might even buy it and I’m not a huge Beatles fan.
Most music on iTunes is no longer DRM'ed, so you could share it just as easily. And considering how long Beatles albums have been on Napster/Kaazaa/torrents, etc. this obv. won't affect anything.
Those are some pretty sweet flash drives/apples by the way...
iTMS music isn't DRMed anymore, but it is tagged.
One might have to explain how their tagged music wound up on several million computers...
Don't mess with Yoko. You steal Apple name, you get no Beatles music. ...
For the record, even though everyone seems to hate her, there has never been any evidence of any kind that Yoko is the one holding up the talks or even has much to do with it. It's basically a popular myth that may be true and may not.
You have no idea how disturbing I find it that you like the Beatles enough to buy the mono box set.
McCartney is retarded, shame the bullet got Lennon.
McCartney isn't the problem here. This thing is in the hands of lawyers and record execs (and record execs who are lawyers, God help us).
And it would have been a shame for a bullet to have gotten any of them, dumbass. But if someone had shot McCartney instead of Lennon, you think the current situation would have been any different? Moreover, are you such a narrow-minded loser that you think this issue (which in the scheme of things is pretty trivial, since anyone who wants to have their music on an iPod/iPhone can do so very easily) is enough to want someone to die over? If so, please proceed immediately to the nearest running shower with a plugged-in hairdryer.
There's really nothing that iTunes LP does for audiophiles. Sure, it provides artwork and such, but the audio quality is still crap (to an audiophile). Have you tried listening to iTunes Plus quality digital music on a good audio system? It's fair at best.
Factcheck: 256 kbps AAC is indistinguishable from lossless to the human ear.
Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.
I have the original Star Wars on VHS and the original Beatles albums on vinyl bought at the time they were released and I can tell you that you probably wouldn't want them. They are crap quality. The movies are full of digital artefacts and bad puppets and the albums are mono and have a very flat sound even if you ignore 40 plus years of scratches and crud.
Well I think the major thing is they are still stuck with this idea that they want people to buy the whole damn thing rather than just a few songs or even a CD or two. Eventually they'll milk it out to the point where they realize that iTunes isn't going to cannibalize their idiotic addiction to selling $200+ sets and then they are going to realize that, holy crap, they could have made way, way, way more if they had just put the CDs out on iTunes at 1 month increments and allow people to download a track at a time at $1.29.
They are arguably worse than George Lucas IMO...
Who cares if the Beatles ever come to iTunes. Their empire is old and isn't the point of such progressive thinking as iTunes, Apple, etc. Keep these stubborn old fossils out of the new way...they made their money... Out with the old, in with the new!!!!!
Comments
Is it lossless? Does it come with reproductions of original vinyl sleaves and inserts? Do I steal?
NO and NO and HUH?
who cares? iphones have better music recording apps than what the Beatles used in the studio back in those days
Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.
Original Star Wars or nothing.
The newer, CGI-laden blue-tinted versions are horrible.
I've got an original version on DVD.
Endless? I thought the Beatles didn't have a rerelease since the mid-80's and from what I understand, the new version does a very good job of restoring the music with technology that wasn't available in the 80's. Waiting 25 years to release a new version doesn't strike me as "endless re-releases", there even were a lot of fans begging for a restoration. Hard to see where the comparison is valid here against someone else that might have done different packaging every five years.
The Anthology doesn't count as a shameless money grab? George added stuff, released stuff that hadn't been seen before and it's a shameless money grab but the Beatles do the same thing and since it's music they get a free pass? They release this stuff because they know the fans will buy it, and they do. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that but let's call a spade a spade here.
mccartney is retarded, shame the bullet got lennon.
+1
....
Original Star Wars or nothing.
The newer, CGI-laden blue-tinted versions are horrible.
I've got an original version on DVD.
Let's ignore the changing of scenes and who shoots first and if Luke whines or not (although George did go back and change that one) let's just look at the special effects "fix up" in the star wars movie. You're vehemently against the updating of the CGI of Star Wars to reflect what George had originally wanted it to be but didn't have the technology to do it but the Beatles going back and updating their recordings and do what they can to make it sound as much like what they had intended is viewed as artistic?
I don't like the added scenes in SW either but saying updating the CGI is any different than digitizing and perfecting the original recording is any different you're just lying to yourself. Both are processes that allow the original artist to bring their vision to the masses in such a way as they had originally wanted, or at least as close to it as possible. (added scenes excluded, although, there is documentation that Lucas wanted those scenes but just didn't have the CGI or $ to get them in there so if we're just talking about the artists vision...)
EDIT: I guess here's the rub - in the world of music the artist is always viewed as owning the music, it doesn't belong to the fans but in the world of cinema once you release something it then belongs to the fans and you aren't allowed to touch it. Double standard perhaps?
EDIT 2: Also, if you're a purist why in the world do you have anything on DVD? You should have it on LaserDisc
TAnd now that iTunes LP exists to provide bells and whistles to the media buffs and audiophiles out there...
There's really nothing that iTunes LP does for audiophiles. Sure, it provides artwork and such, but the audio quality is still crap (to an audiophile). Have you tried listening to iTunes Plus quality digital music on a good audio system? It's fair at best.
So they're selling them on USB keys in unprotected format, but not on a (reasonably) secure store? What have they been smoking... (don't answer that...)
They have been smoking...dried apple stems of course!
Smells just like you know what, freak out your parents!
There's really nothing that iTunes LP does for audiophiles. Sure, it provides artwork and such, but the audio quality is still crap (to an audiophile). Have you tried listening to iTunes Plus quality digital music on a good audio system? It's fair at best.
Not so much audiophiles as it is for hardcore fans. I hoped that the audio would be lossless from a master copy that exceeds the CD quality. Alas, it wasn’t.
If selling individual songs doesn’t appeal to Apple Records they can use iTunes LP. Some nice artwork and maybe even some previously unreleased video clips and it could be another major revenue stream for music people already own. Hell, I might even buy it and I’m not a huge Beatles fan.
But
I've Got A Feeling - It Won't Be Long - Because - Tomorrow Never Knows.
In any event,
I Should Have Known Better.
Most music on iTunes is no longer DRM'ed, so you could share it just as easily. And considering how long Beatles albums have been on Napster/Kaazaa/torrents, etc. this obv. won't affect anything.
Those are some pretty sweet flash drives/apples by the way...
iTMS music isn't DRMed anymore, but it is tagged.
One might have to explain how their tagged music wound up on several million computers...
Don't mess with Yoko. You steal Apple name, you get no Beatles music. ...
For the record, even though everyone seems to hate her, there has never been any evidence of any kind that Yoko is the one holding up the talks or even has much to do with it. It's basically a popular myth that may be true and may not.
You have no idea how disturbing I find it that you like the Beatles enough to buy the mono box set.
McCartney is retarded, shame the bullet got Lennon.
McCartney isn't the problem here. This thing is in the hands of lawyers and record execs (and record execs who are lawyers, God help us).
And it would have been a shame for a bullet to have gotten any of them, dumbass. But if someone had shot McCartney instead of Lennon, you think the current situation would have been any different? Moreover, are you such a narrow-minded loser that you think this issue (which in the scheme of things is pretty trivial, since anyone who wants to have their music on an iPod/iPhone can do so very easily) is enough to want someone to die over? If so, please proceed immediately to the nearest running shower with a plugged-in hairdryer.
There's really nothing that iTunes LP does for audiophiles. Sure, it provides artwork and such, but the audio quality is still crap (to an audiophile). Have you tried listening to iTunes Plus quality digital music on a good audio system? It's fair at best.
Factcheck: 256 kbps AAC is indistinguishable from lossless to the human ear.
Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.
I have the original Star Wars on VHS and the original Beatles albums on vinyl bought at the time they were released and I can tell you that you probably wouldn't want them. They are crap quality. The movies are full of digital artefacts and bad puppets and the albums are mono and have a very flat sound even if you ignore 40 plus years of scratches and crud.
Sometimes remastering is a good thing.
Who???
No! The Beatles!
Well I think the major thing is they are still stuck with this idea that they want people to buy the whole damn thing rather than just a few songs or even a CD or two. Eventually they'll milk it out to the point where they realize that iTunes isn't going to cannibalize their idiotic addiction to selling $200+ sets and then they are going to realize that, holy crap, they could have made way, way, way more if they had just put the CDs out on iTunes at 1 month increments and allow people to download a track at a time at $1.29.
They are arguably worse than George Lucas IMO...
Who cares if the Beatles ever come to iTunes. Their empire is old and isn't the point of such progressive thinking as iTunes, Apple, etc. Keep these stubborn old fossils out of the new way...they made their money... Out with the old, in with the new!!!!!
BTW, Beatles Rock Band? How "uncool"