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.)
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical
I applaud Yoko and Apple Corp. for NOT adding the greatest rock catalog out there to iTunes so individual songs (vs albums) cannot be downloaded. You're an idiot if you let an electronics company dictate what music you listen to.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goocher
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.
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.
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.
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.)
No, you're an idiot if you let a music act dictate what music you listen to. I'm only allowed to listen to full albums? What if an artist told you you're not allowed to have one of his competitors in the same music collection? Would you accept that decree, too?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, you're an idiot if you let a music act dictate what music you listen to. I'm only allowed to listen to full albums? What if an artist told you you're not allowed to have one of his competitors in the same music collection? Would you accept that decree, too?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
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.
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?
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.
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.
I applaud Yoko and Apple Corp. for NOT adding the greatest rock catalog out there to iTunes so individual songs (vs albums) cannot be downloaded. You're an idiot if you let an electronics company dictate what music you listen to.
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.
Angus Young has basically said they get a raw deal from their record company for downloads compared to album sales, so they've just refused to allow download sales
Of course they do.
They have been exclusive to Verizon for digital download sales for 3 years now.
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.
Comments
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.)
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?
I applaud Yoko and Apple Corp. for NOT adding the greatest rock catalog out there to iTunes so individual songs (vs albums) cannot be downloaded. You're an idiot if you let an electronics company dictate what music you listen to.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.)
No, you're an idiot if you let a music act dictate what music you listen to. I'm only allowed to listen to full albums? What if an artist told you you're not allowed to have one of his competitors in the same music collection? Would you accept that decree, too?
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.
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.
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.
um, no
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.
He never said that he wished her dead. Don't put words in peoples mouths.
No, you're an idiot if you let a music act dictate what music you listen to. I'm only allowed to listen to full albums? What if an artist told you you're not allowed to have one of his competitors in the same music collection? Would you accept that decree, too?
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.
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.
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.
OK, we'll just keep stealing them, then.
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?
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.
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.
I applaud Yoko and Apple Corp. for NOT adding the greatest rock catalog out there to iTunes so individual songs (vs albums) cannot be downloaded. You're an idiot if you let an electronics company dictate what music you listen to.
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.
Angus Young has basically said they get a raw deal from their record company for downloads compared to album sales, so they've just refused to allow download sales
Of course they do.
They have been exclusive to Verizon for digital download sales for 3 years now.
AMEN! I'm with you!
Beatles are hypocrites!
BEATLES on iTunes, No Sale Here!!!
Damn, That Felt Good!
"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.
Idiots suits run Apple Records and EMI. I wish the the remaining Beatles and the two widows would step and and make this happen.
All of LZ is available on iTunes. (Now, if they could get on to Rock Band, that would be something else....)
That's new. Just last year there was nothing.