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

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
The on-again, off-again rumors of the Beatles' music catalog coming to iTunes continue, this time with John Lennon's widow saying she doesn't expect it to happen anytime soon.



"Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy," Ono said in an interview with Reuters. "There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out."



She continued: "Don't hold your breath... for anything."



Last year, the entire Beatles catalog was remastered and re-released in a box set that came on on Sept. 9. That was the same date that Apple introduced its updated line of iPods, and the timing led some to expect that a deal would be announced. But the dates turned out to be purely coincidence.



Rumors of the band's songs appearing on iTunes have existed for years. Apple and the parent company of The Beatles, Apple Corps, were engaged in a lengthy and bitter trademark dispute for decades, but that issue was resolved in 2007.



Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.



Reuters noted that Apple Corps has been unable to come to terms for digital downloads with EMI Group, which licenses the Beatles' recordings. From there, another deal with iTunes would need to be struck.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 125
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    It is unlikely then, that I will ever buy another Beatles song.



    Buh Bye, Beatles!
  • Reply 2 of 125
    cggrcggr Posts: 37member
    Gawd youre a pest Ono - surely you cant have too much longer on the planet annoying everyone can you..?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The on-again, off-again rumors of the Beatles' music catalog coming to iTunes continue, this time with John Lennon's widow saying she doesn't expect it to happen anytime soon.



    "Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy," Ono said in an interview with Reuters. "There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out."



    She continued: "Don't hold your breath... for anything."



    Last year, the entire Beatles catalog was remastered and re-released in a box set that came on on Sept. 9. That was the same date that Apple introduced its updated line of iPods, and the timing led some to expect that a deal would be announced. But the dates turned out to be purely coincidence.



    Rumors of the band's songs appearing on iTunes have existed for years. Apple and the parent company of The Beatles, Apple Corps, were engaged in a lengthy and bitter trademark dispute for decades, but that issue was resolved in 2007.



    Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.



    Reuters noted that Apple Corps has been unable to come to terms for digital downloads with EMI Group, which licenses the Beatles' recordings. From there, another deal with iTunes would need to be struck.



  • Reply 3 of 125
    OK, we'll just keep stealing them, then.\
  • Reply 4 of 125
    I might be just me, (and I'm out of the demographics that buy a lot of music), the lack of Beatles albums on iTunes (or anywhere) has never been more than a yawn to me. (Truth be told, I listened to the Beatles when their music first came out. I'm not much interested in music for nostalgia's sake).



    I might understand the issues between EMI/Beatles and Apple, but I don't care.
  • Reply 5 of 125
    That would make many people very happy.
  • Reply 6 of 125
    I really don't understand the fanfare over getting the Beatles music catalog on iTunes.



    If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.



    If you're a new fan, just buy their Greatest Hits cd anywhere for $9.99 and go from there.



    It's not like they'll be releasing any NEW music, so it really shouldn't matter.
  • Reply 7 of 125
    Is there really anybody on the planet that wants Beatles music that doesn't already own Beatles music? I mean, it's been 40+ years. I can't imagine that sales will really go up much just because it was made available on iTunes.
  • Reply 8 of 125
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,302member
    "the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format."



    The title of the article could be interpreted to mean that the Beatles recordings are available on other digital music sites and that only iTunes is being denied. Then the article rehashes the trademarked name battle, further supporting the idea that iTunes is the real problem. Why do editors do stuff like this? Words plant ideas and I can't believe AppleInsider didn't do this intentionally. The editor intended to spin this as a purely Apple vs Beatles issue when the truth is something else.
  • Reply 9 of 125
    mobiusmobius Posts: 375member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SendMe View Post


    It is unlikely then, that I will ever buy another Beatles song.



    Buh Bye, Beatles!



    Ridiculous statement. Do you really think anyone cares - least of all McCartney.
  • Reply 10 of 125
    s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    last time i checked, i could not download original Black Sabbath records either... so why all the hype over the Beatles. Ozzy was just as influential as Lennon.
  • Reply 11 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    last time i checked, i could not download original Black Sabbath records either... so why all the hype over the Beatles. Ozzy was just as influential as Lennon.



    Led Zeppelin, man... Led Zeppelin.
  • Reply 12 of 125
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    last time i checked, i could not download original Black Sabbath records either... so why all the hype over the Beatles. Ozzy was just as influential as Lennon.



    ?? Maybe close, but not as influential as Lennon ? imho



    Skip
  • Reply 13 of 125
    mobiusmobius Posts: 375member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cggr View Post


    Gawd youre a pest Ono - surely you cant have too much longer on the planet annoying everyone can you..?



    So you'd wish death on another human being just because she's said something that rankles with you? The polar opposite of what her late husband advocated I believe.
  • Reply 14 of 125
    Legal issues with EMI, the same company that didn't want to give a potential alien race free access to Beatles music.



    (With the launch of the Voyager probe in 1977, NASA, under the suggestion of Carl Sagan, wanted to include "Here Comes the Sun" on the Golden Record. The Beatles loved the idea, but EMI refused to release the rights.)
  • Reply 15 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Led Zeppelin, man... Led Zeppelin.



    All of LZ is available on iTunes. (Now, if they could get on to Rock Band, that would be something else....)
  • Reply 16 of 125
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,236member
    Gee I got the Beatles in my itune's library what the issue, whats the big deal...



    Oh wait, I ripped them from the CD I bought from the second hand store and if I remember correctly, all the song added up to less then $0.99 each, and they are higher quality then the ones you get form itunes.



    I wonder if Okon Ono and Paul got their royalty payments form the second hand store....
  • Reply 17 of 125
    ruel24ruel24 Posts: 432member
    I don't think you can really blame them. What I see is this: The record companies have pushed to keep the royalties where they've been for quite some time, which is a paltry amount compared to the share the record companies get. However, because distribution is so much cheaper digitally, the record companies are getting more of the profits. The Beatles still sell very well after all these years. I'm sure it's a matter of how much Apple Corps. is getting from the record companies to make them available digitally.



    Now all of this is just speculation on my part, but since the article states that Apple Corps. has failed to make a deal with EMI, I assume that's the case. If it is, I'm completely behind The Beatles move. Honestly, the people that create the music we listen to, don't get much of the bounty. I had a friend that was in a Salsa band that was big in Miami a few years back, when Ricky Martin went big time, and they were in negotiations for a record contract. The way he laid it out to me was that the record company paid $0.07 for every record sale, which $0.04 went to the song writer, and the other $0.03 went to the recording artist. And, everytime a song is played on the radio, TV, or an event, the song writer got $0.02 and the recording artist $0.01, IIRC. This pales in comparison to what the record company takes in. However, they do take the risk, at first, with a new artist, and there is substantial costs to get the records played and distributed. But, digital distribution, and thanks to YouTube, these costs have come down some. I remember watching a TV show, where Queen Latifah said that she only got about $200,000 for her break out, smash hit album. Considering how well that sold, that's nothing. She said she quickly realized that they were going to have to do a lot of touring to make money.



    So, to wrap it all up, I can't blame them. The record companies and RIAA have been on a money grab since iTunes has become a success, yet the artists haven't shared in that success with the price increases that came later.
  • Reply 18 of 125
    s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    ?? Maybe close, but not as influential as Lennon ? imho



    Skip



    depends on the genre of music you listen too..
  • Reply 19 of 125
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,561member
    After there was no announcement regarding The Beatles on iTunes I got them from the remastered stereo Albums they released. Now I have them all in iTunes.
  • Reply 20 of 125
    cggrcggr Posts: 37member
    She wont die though mannnn - she'll be reincarnated in some hindu wheel-of life 70's hippy-fest concept of the afterlife....



    But her music did suck.

    So did her personality.

    She's the original harpie.



    And yes I suppose she is on my top ten list of people that the world could probably do without.



    Don't wish death on her. Just silence.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mobius View Post


    So you'd wish death on another human being just because she's said something that rankles with you? The polar opposite of what her late husband advocated I believe.



Sign In or Register to comment.