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.
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.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-Apple and love their products, and them as a company, but they're not bigger than the Beatles. Period.
You DO know they can simply release the whole friggin album as "Album Only" songs, don't you?
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....
Then I guess they never should have released all those songs on 45s.
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.
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....."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
If you are a musician, then Lennon/McCartney have to arguably be the best songwriting duo of their time.
Personally, I'd vote for Rogers and Hammerstein, but I guess you're limiting yourself to one genre.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Comments
Now for EMI, it might be about money. But, I don't think it is for the others.
Yoko Ono-how old is this hobag? 100?
Arcade Fire's new album is out. So who cares about her and her late husband's band's overplayed music.
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.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-Apple and love their products, and them as a company, but they're not bigger than the Beatles. Period.
You DO know they can simply release the whole friggin album as "Album Only" songs, don't you?
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....
Then I guess they never should have released all those songs on 45s.
"'(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.
Of course they do.
They have been exclusive to Verizon for digital download sales for 3 years now.
On a specific DRM'ed platform that can't be moved to other music players. And which got a separate, specific licensing deal.
Then I guess they never should have released all those songs on 45s.
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.
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.
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?
Deal sealed.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If you are a musician, then Lennon/McCartney have to arguably be the best songwriting duo of their time.
Personally, I'd vote for Rogers and Hammerstein, but I guess you're limiting yourself to one genre.
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.
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.
OK, we'll just keep stealing them, then.
And the RIAA will keep suing people like you for many thousands of dollars. And I will cherish all your sweet, sweet tears. Idiot.
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."
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.