Will we ever see the beatles on iTMS?

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Like, there are a couple tracks on there now, but they are like...someone else featuring the beatles, they are likely not controlled by apple music, and are therefore able to be put up.



Well, do you think the Apple music group ever submit to the iTunes music store?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    i think we might eventually--what they really should do is be exclusively in itunes. imagine the possibilities...
  • Reply 2 of 18
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    i think we might eventually--what they really should do is be exclusively in itunes. imagine the possibilities...



    Some background:

    http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm



    Bottom line is I think Sony will distribute the Beatles via Sony's upcoming online music store...what better marketing tactic is there than that?



    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ss/7656062.htm



    Don't count on ever seeing Beatles on iTunes, not while Sony is involved.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    nijiniji Posts: 288member
    Well, do you think the Apple music group ever submit to the iTunes music store?



    No.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    that bit about michael jackson is no longer true. a few years ago michael gave half of the publishing to sony in a loan deal, and now he has used the part he still owns as collateral on a loan that sony guaranteed. this loan has come due 2 or three times now and he hasn't been able pay. eventually they are going to quit giving him extensions and take it away.



    the loan came due the first week in february but i never heard what happened.



    oh and the beatles (or rather, apple) have said the main objection with iTunes is they don't want anyone to be able buy tracks individually, it's the whole album or nothing. they are not alone, i think that's why there is no radiohead as well.



    and they won't be on sony's either for the same reason as above. owning the publishing rights has nothing to do with the selling of beatles music.
  • Reply 5 of 18
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    that bit about michael jackson is no longer true



    Yeah the thing I linked to says Last updated: 7 May 2001, thanks for the update. Bottom line is that Apple Corps isn't really the concern, it's more Sony that would likely squash any possibility ot selling Beatles through iTunes (rather than their own system)
  • Reply 6 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    Yeah the thing I linked to says Last updated: 7 May 2001, thanks for the update. Bottom line is that Apple Corps isn't really the concern, it's more Sony that would likely squash any possibility ot selling Beatles through iTunes (rather than their own system)



    i edited my post above, whoever owns the (publishing) copyright has no control of how the music is put into the hands of consumers.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    oh and the beatles (or rather, apple) have said the main objection with iTunes is they don't want anyone to be able buy tracks individually, it's the whole album or nothing. they are not alone, i think that's why there is no radiohead as well.



    This kind of thing really gets under my skin.



    If you release a good album, people will buy the album. I have purchased a grand total of zero singles on iTMS, because I prefer albums generally. If the Beatles catalog went up, I'd nab a couple of their albums.



    But if someone wants to pick and choose - say, one song for a mix CD for his girlfriend, or something - who the hell are the Beatles or anyone else to say they can't? It's just dumb. They're essentially saying that people just don't understand or appreciate their work, so it has to be rammed down their throats.



  • Reply 8 of 18
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,129member
    Amorph that is hitting the bullseye.





    Established artists that sell a lot of records have come up with excuse after excuse. "my albums are meant to be listened to in order"



    Unless you're Pink Floyd or have an album that is definitely a "concept" album that is bunk.



    Let's call a spade a spade. The studios and artists both want to secure as much of your money as possible. Note the newest trend. I have 6 good singles. I could put them all on one album but that wouldn't be good for profits so I'll mix the 6 good songs over a Double Album set with the rest of the filler tracks and charge $25 for it. Pretty much all of the recent double albums lately could have been smash single CDs.



    The industry is afraid to move on. They're afraid to let the consumer decide what tracks they want to pay for. They want to scapegoat filesharing but they need to know the truth. I have purchased 61 DVDs in less than 18ths. That means I have spent over $1000 on media that was not pirated. Those could have been 61 CDs but considering my average DVD price is $13 or less DVDs provide much more entertainment than a few 4 minute pop songs.



    The music industry is in trouble and this is great! The Big 5 has dominated enough. It's time for the truly independant artists to have a voice. Artists have been pimped long enough by talentless hacks.



    I can live without the Beatles I can live without Radiohead. They are but gnats in comparison to the world of music that we have the potential to access.
  • Reply 9 of 18
    it's an artist's right (if they have control over it) to see how their music is disseminated to the public.



    integrity has become scarce this day and age, you may see it as them trying to squeeze every penny from the public. if that were true then they'd find whatever bits of crap they have laying around on editing room floors and sell it piecemeal on iTunes and make a fortune.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,129member
    Quote:

    integrity has become scarce this day and age,



    Bollocks. The day the first recorded music was sold integrity was lost. Frankly I don't care about the Artists desire to extract more of my money for shoddy value. If people steal from them then that should be a clue. The chickens are coming home to roost. Do not blame anyone but your greedy Big 5 cohorts.



    Integrity is missing from both sides.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    i don't understand your point of view, you say artists have no integrity but you close with blame no one but the big five?



    artists are all lumped together now with regards to integrity, so britney spears and the beatles have the same level of integrity?



    absurd!
  • Reply 12 of 18
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    it's an artist's right (if they have control over it) to see how their music is disseminated to the public.



    You realize, of course, that most artists have very little control over that very thing? The ones that do tend to be very fortunate, or very small-time.



    The idea of forcing whole album downloads is simply and purely to keep up the old economics, where if you like one song, you buy the album. 99 cent singles are a threat to the industry standard $16-$20 single, and that's the beginning and the end of it.



    The Beatles didn't play their songs in album order live, and they don't seem to mind if a radio station plucks a song off Abbey Road instead of playing the whole album. Why on Earth should they care if Joe Schmoe only wants one song, too?



    A work of art is not finished when the artist releases it. It's completed every time it's observed by someone, and their judgment is no less final than the artist's within that scope. If some artist feels that song X can only be heard in the context of their sweeping concept album, fine. If I think song X is a nice little pop gem, but the rest of the album is crap, am I wrong? Should I have to pay full album price for that one song? Keep in mind that, currently, hopping on Gnutella and getting that one song is a popular option, and before that asking for a tape off a friend was popular, and before that, 45s were popular.



    Quote:

    integrity has become scarce this day and age, you may see it as them trying to squeeze every penny from the public. if that were true then they'd find whatever bits of crap they have laying around on editing room floors and sell it piecemeal on iTunes and make a fortune.



    Integrity as an artist cannot be considered independently of respect for the audience. If the artist really considers their audience to be Philistines that have to be dictated to, any notion of integrity is moot. Besides, the whole issue is completely overblown. Artists do have to consider listenability and saleability, even if it's to decide not to pay much attention to them, and there's nothing wrong with that: Art requires an audience, and so the audience is part of the art. The Victorian cult of the genius (and specifically, the genius in isolation) needs to die, and the sooner the better.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    It also makes no sense that the beatles would care that single songs are being downloaded when virtually every song from their early years was released as a single.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,129member
    Quote:

    You realize, of course, that most artists have very little control over that very thing? The ones that do tend to be very fortunate, or very small-time.



    Amorph I know you're a musician as well. Your group works hard to create songs that you enjoy playing and your fans enjoy listening to. Had there been "Integrity" in this industry then artists wouldn't have to give up their publishing or have unecessary controls over their album.



    Amorph the rest of your post is just magic.





    I'm a music lover. I am not looking to cheap out on artists. I'm just looking to have access to the many different genres that I enjoy without going bankrupt in the process.



    I believe that the future would be much less stressful for artists if they went to a format in which they were able to release smaller albums or even singles and then tour once they amass a new selection of music that is popular.



    There is still too much shady stuff going on. I bough Evanescense and I enjoy the album but at the last minute they replaced "Missing" with another track which I thought wasn't as good. Therefore for my $14 I received less. Rather than just make the album one track longer they deleted a song I would have preferred. Art huh \
  • Reply 15 of 18
    i wasn't talking about most artists i was talking about the beatles.



    also wrong robot:

    the beatles released singles and albums, their intention (which their american label capitols subverted) was singles were singles and albums were album, and never the twain shall meet.



    in the official releases of beatles records there was NEVER a single on an album until abbey road.



    which leads me to wondering, why don't they let the singles be downloaded?
  • Reply 16 of 18
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I'm kinda of the belief that if you're any sort of halfway serious Beatle fan, you've probably already got all their stuff anyway. I do. They were actually the very first CDs of mine that converted to mp3 with iTunes and took the plunge in digital music.



    What was that, three or so years ago?



    I don't give two damns if they ever come to the iTMS or not.







    [ducks]



    But on a serious note, it would be good for others out there to easily (and affordably) get their hands on this stuff. Especially young goons who think the sun rises and sets on Avril, Green Day or Britney.







    It would be their first step towards actually getting somewhat of a clue.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    i wasn't talking about most artists i was talking about the beatles.



    Actually, you were talking about how it was "an artist's right," generically, and I pointed out that it's actually a rare privilege that is not rewarded on the basis of artistic merit. George Clinton, the critically acclaimed author of many concept albums that are best heard as albums, had absolutely no say in who sampled how much of which songs, and he never saw a dime in royalties.



    But what's the difference between the Beatles and "most artists?" Commercial success and fan acclaim. You've already pooh-poohed commercial success (even though, as David Byrne has pointed out, it's a real goal to strive for before you get signed, because it gives you leverage with the label in contract negotiations - musicians do have to think about these things in order to get contracts that allow them to keep some degree of artistic integrity!), so that leaves fan acclaim. Well, that just means that you trust the fans, that you trust their judgment. So trust them.



    I despise the idea of some sort of privilege system. If the Beatles are uncommonly good at creating and arranging entire albums, then people will seek after entire albums by and large. I can't imagine that there are hoardes of Beatles fans chomping at the bit to download disjoint bits and pieces of their body of work. And, frankly, the ones who will do that will do that. It's a matter of whether they ask a friend to burn them a Beatles mix CD (and the Beatles get nothing) or they go to iTMS and grab the tracks they like (in which case the Beatles get paid).



    Also, you have to look at the flip side of the issue. If the Beatles get a special exception, the labels will start requiring that the Bimbo of the Week gets an exception too (remember, the Beatles started out as a boy band, and millions of teenage girls picked one of the Fab Four as their personal heartthrob!), so that would-be fans have to buy the whole album to get the one single - which is exactly the abuse of the album format that everyone is hoping that iTMS will undermine.



    So, in fact, my argument is that if you want to foster the "whole album" idea, iTMS as it currently stands is near-optimal. It defeats the "single + 10 tracks of filler" abuse of the format, but it also allows one-click buying of albums that really do stand on their own as albums. And it acknowledges the truth that, finally, it's the listener's judgment that determines whether the artist has succeeded in creating a "whole album."



    (And for the record, the Beatles have the clout they have because of their commercial success. Labels respect that.)
  • Reply 18 of 18
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    I'm kinda of the belief that if you're any sort of halfway serious Beatle fan, you've probably already got all their stuff anyway.



    I do..
Sign In or Register to comment.