I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see an iPod ad set to a Beatles tune during the Super Bowl, which is Feb. 4 and less than two weeks before Valentine's Day. Particularly if Apple is going to launch a new iPod or even refresh the line with storage bumps or new colors.
That seems to make more sense than an iPhone ad during the Super Bowl for a product that won't debut until June (though the movie studios routinely feature summer movies during the Super Bowl to generate early buzz).
This is silly. Is there anyone left who wants a Beatles song that doesn?t already have it? Or can?t get it elsewhere legitimately or for free. Bah!
Well the same could be said of SO many artists who are already on iTunes. Don't we have the CDS already? Everyone keeps buying them and the Beatles are the most illegially downloaded band ever.
I thought for sure he would ahve used Revolution (1) at some point during the Keynote for obvious effect as well ...
Yeah, That went over really well when Nike used it.
Quote:
"Revolution" was the first Beatles recording, and indeed one of the first rock music recordings by any artist, to be licensed for use in a television commercial. (Ford Motor Company had used a cover version of "Help!" for a TV ad in 1985) Nike used the actual Beatles recording for a commercial in 1987, paying $250,000 for the rights to Capitol Records and Michael Jackson, who owned the publishing rights. This caused a huge backlash among Beatles fans, who felt Lennon would have objected to this usage, especially in the face of controversy over Nike's use of sweatshops. In addition McCartney protested, saying, "Songs like Revolution don't mean a pair of sneakers, they mean Revolution." Nike later released a television ad featuring the Lennon song "Instant Karma," with the permission of Yoko Ono.
"Somebody refresh my memory: I thought the Beatles catalogue had been sold several times, going at least through Michael Jackson? Was that something other than the reproduction rights of the original recordings themselves?"
The Beatles performances have always been owned by the record companies and the Beatles themselves. Michael Jackson (along with Sony) bought the publishing rights, which means if someone else wants to record or perform a Lennon/McCartney song, they have to pay royalties to them.
This is the "compelling evidence" cited by Electronista (from Abby Road Beat):
"(1/13/07) There's unofficial and completely unsubstantiated talk that an announcement between Apple and Apple Computer Inc. will be made on, or around Valentine's Day, if all goes according to plan from the rumor we've heard. The announcement will involve "Love," as well. Our source says Apple will have a three month exclusive window for both downloads and remasters. The street release schedule for the remasters was not clear. Conflicting information from our source said that they might be released both all together or in groups, as was done when the first Beatles CDs were released. A compilation is also being discussed, but no firm details are available, the source says."
- how else would Album Art get on the iPhone unless they (Apple Inc) had the rights to it?
You mean had the rights to show it in their presentation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL
Hopefully the remasters won't be compressed which seems to be very popular these days:
The best way to get music onto your iPod is to buy the CD's and rip them yourself. That way you can decide whether you use Apple lossless or not or the amount of compression you want. You also dont have to 'wait' for the material to appear in the iTunes store.
I think maybe JLL meant dynamic range compression, which is different from encoding compression.
They have the original multi-track analog tapes in most cases - the quality will be awesome. You don't think they start from an LP do you
But the Beatles music you've always heard has always been incredibly compressed. If they were to play the uncompressed recordings, it would sound (a) like shit and (b) not like the Beatles.
Uncompressed versus compressed audio is like ordering fish at a restaurant and getting sashimi. It's just a different taste, but it's NOT what Beatles fans would be expecting or would want.
In the case of pop music, a better analogy would be like chicken. Unlike fish or beef, raw chicken is dangerously unhealthy, and tastes terrible.
Uncompressed pop is probably one of the least appealing listening experiences you can have.
Quote:
p.s. And, having said that, CDs were mostly never close to the potential of LPs on good gear.
On good equipment (ie, modern DJ equipment that didn't exist 20, let alone 40 years ago), and a perfect, new record that hasn't been subjected to: time, heat, or ever being played, records peak out at around 70 decibels of dynamic range. Practically, records will never come anywhere near this.
The typical audio CD's range is over 100 decibels.
In other words, a run of the mill CD has a range of over 1,000 times that of the perfect, impossible to achieve record. (Remember, decibels are logarithmic.)
Vinyl is an appallingly bad music distribution medium. Don't make shit up.
"Somebody refresh my memory: I thought the Beatles catalogue had been sold several times, going at least through Michael Jackson? Was that something other than the reproduction rights of the original recordings themselves?"
The Beatles performances have always been owned by the record companies and the Beatles themselves. Michael Jackson (along with Sony) bought the publishing rights, which means if someone else wants to record or perform a Lennon/McCartney song, they have to pay royalties to them.
They have the original multi-track analog tapes in most cases - the quality will be awesome. You don't think they start from an LP do you?
p.s. And, having said that, CDs were mostly never close to the potential of LPs on good gear.
Hey, I just thought of something: what if part of the Beatles deal is higher bitrate downloads? It would make sense-- Apple Corps wanting to present the material in the best possible light (especially if they are remastering them), Apple using the occasion to start to move towards better audio encodes to go with the higher resolution video and AppleTV.
"Introducing the Beatles on iTunes: in high resolution sound that's only somewhat worse the the CDs you already bought!"
I'm no expert on analog tape recording, but wasn't ~80dB about the best that was around at the time of the Beatles original recordings? Inotherwords, the best that a remastered audio tape to digital recording will ever be is only as good as the original (i. e. 80dB)? Just curious.
But the Beatles music you've always heard has always been incredibly compressed. If they were to play the uncompressed recordings, it would sound (a) like shit and (b) not like the Beatles.
Uncompressed versus compressed audio is like ordering fish at a restaurant and getting sashimi. It's just a different taste, but it's NOT what Beatles fans would be expecting or would want.
In the case of pop music, a better analogy would be like chicken. Unlike fish or beef, raw chicken is dangerously unhealthy, and tastes terrible.
Uncompressed pop is probably one of the least appealing listening experiences you can have.
On good equipment (ie, modern DJ equipment that didn't exist 20, let alone 40 years ago), and a perfect, new record that hasn't been subjected to: time, heat, or ever being played, records peak out at around 70 decibels of dynamic range. Practically, records will never come anywhere near this.
The typical audio CD's range is over 100 decibels.
In other words, a run of the mill CD has a range of over 1,000 times that of the perfect, impossible to achieve record. (Remember, decibels are logarithmic.)
Vinyl is an appallingly bad music distribution medium. Don't make shit up.
Sir, your language is not appropriate in this forum.
It is a far more complex issue that your somewhat arrogant and certainly rude post suggests...
Sir, your language is not appropriate in this forum. CDs were limited by the digital sampling that was part of the Philips designs that were prematurely rushed out. Digital data is way better than that provided by the original CD standard. Whilst analog media suffered from all sorts of problems it had some advantages over CDs if used on high end equipment. Obviously digital data is these days at another level. I am talking about the 1970s when I owned a recording studio
Right. Digital data can be way better than the original CD standard, and has a dynamic range exceeding the limits of human hearing. Every bit you add to the bit depth adds an extra 6 dB of range.
The original CD specification, what we're talking about, still, and always has had, over 100 dB of range, which is still 1,000 times than vinyl. The fact that other advances have made records sound even worse is irrelevant.
About Philips' issues, originally they wanted 14-bit sampling (versus the 16-bit sampling that ended up being in the final standard, at Sony's insistence). This would have resulted in a product with only around 90 dB of dynamic range, or 100 times better than vinyl.
Sony won though; the CD, even back in 1982, always featured the full 16-bit sampling it does today.
Right. Digital data can be way better than the original CD standard, and has a dynamic range exceeding the limits of human hearing. Every bit you add to the bit depth adds an extra 6 dB of range.
The original CD specification, what we're talking about, still, and always has had, over 100 dB of range, which is still 1,000 times than vinyl. The fact that other advances have made records sound even worse is irrelevant.
About Philips' issues, originally they wanted 14-bit sampling (versus the 16-bit sampling that ended up being in the final standard, at Sony's insistence). This would have resulted in a product with only around 90 dB of dynamic range, or 100 times better than vinyl.
Sony won though; the CD, even back in 1982, always featured the full 16-bit sampling it does today.
No what we are talking about, or I am, was to disagree with you that the Beatle's original recordings will not be able to sound great in the modern digital era due to compression or whatever limitations were around in the 60's.
My premise is by going back to the original master tapes (obviously not the very early stuff) and using modern technology they will be able to create amazing sounds. Let us wait and see shall we?
Since you changed your post, I guess I'll respond to that too
"paul_b_18-ga" has one of the most oft-repeated misunderstandings about digital versus analog sound, that digital sampling throws out information that records perfectly preserve. This is untrue.
While the process of sampling does throw out information, so does the process of putting something into plastic. Grooves can only go so deep before the needle gets stuck and breaks. Only so much information can be packed in before the valleys and troughs become smaller than vinyl molecules. Dust, broken pieces of vinyl, warping, and pressing errors introduce "noise" that often overpowers the signal.
This is why vinyl is so bad. Sounds quieter than, say, 50 dB below peak, just can't be heard because they're overwhelmed by noise. To compensate, you have to significantly compress the audio (increase the loudness of the quieter noises) so that these will be heard and not fade out entirely. Also bad for vinyl, if you're playing a record at around 100 dB, you have at least 30 dB of constant noise and hiss, more on cheaper equipment or an older record.
Again, CDs aren't perfect and do have problems, but again, these imperfections aren't noticeable until you crank the CD up painfully loud to begin with, and are likely to be smaller than the imperfections in your sound system. As I stated before, CDs faithfully record over 100 dB of dynamic range.
The only other benefit of vinyl in that thread, by rayljr-ga, is that records can theoretically hold information above 22,500 hertz, whereas CDs clamp them here. While these frequencies, individually, are inaudible to humans, recent research seems to imply that we can hear the effect they have with other, lower frequencies when played simultaneously.
Of course, as rayljr points out, you need a really expensive needle and system to pick these up, but also a record that hasn't been played more than a few times before, since needles will eat away at this information after a few plays.
The only genuine solution to hear these is to go with SACD or DVD-Audio.
No what we are talking about, or I am, was to disagree with you that the Beatle's original recordings will not be able to sound great in the modern digital era due to compression or whatever limitations were around in the 60's.
My premise is by going back to the original master tapes (obviously not the very early stuff) and using modern technology they will be able to create amazing sounds. Let us wait and see shall we?
Well then why didn't you just say that instead of going into some nonsense about how vinyl doesn't completely suck?
Well then why didn't you just say that instead of going into some nonsense about how vinyl doesn't completely suck?
That was a p.s. and slightly tongue in cheek in a way but ... I am one of those that used to be able to (too old now) to hear the difference between a CD and an LP of the same recording on studio quality equipment in the early days.
Comments
The day Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play 40 years ago today...
That seems to make more sense than an iPhone ad during the Super Bowl for a product that won't debut until June (though the movie studios routinely feature summer movies during the Super Bowl to generate early buzz).
But I thought you might want to know
The singer's going to sing a song,
But you better not copy it wrong
So let me introduce to you,
the one and only legally downloadable Billy Shears!
Sergeant Pepper's
Digital Rights Managed Band!
This is silly. Is there anyone left who wants a Beatles song that doesn?t already have it? Or can?t get it elsewhere legitimately or for free. Bah!
Well the same could be said of SO many artists who are already on iTunes. Don't we have the CDS already? Everyone keeps buying them and the Beatles are the most illegially downloaded band ever.
I thought for sure he would ahve used Revolution (1) at some point during the Keynote for obvious effect as well ...
Yeah, That went over really well when Nike used it.
"Revolution" was the first Beatles recording, and indeed one of the first rock music recordings by any artist, to be licensed for use in a television commercial. (Ford Motor Company had used a cover version of "Help!" for a TV ad in 1985) Nike used the actual Beatles recording for a commercial in 1987, paying $250,000 for the rights to Capitol Records and Michael Jackson, who owned the publishing rights. This caused a huge backlash among Beatles fans, who felt Lennon would have objected to this usage, especially in the face of controversy over Nike's use of sweatshops. In addition McCartney protested, saying, "Songs like Revolution don't mean a pair of sneakers, they mean Revolution." Nike later released a television ad featuring the Lennon song "Instant Karma," with the permission of Yoko Ono.
- wiki
Hopefully the remasters won't be compressed which seems to be very popular these days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
I hate to break it to you, but any music that was released on record is incredibly, incredibly compressed.
Records have next to zero dynamic range compared to CDs or MP3s.
Furthermore, any pop music is also incredibly compressed. The only music that's sometimes not compressed is orchestral music and sometimes opera.
The Beatles performances have always been owned by the record companies and the Beatles themselves. Michael Jackson (along with Sony) bought the publishing rights, which means if someone else wants to record or perform a Lennon/McCartney song, they have to pay royalties to them.
I hate to break it to you, but any music that was released on record is incredibly, incredibly compressed.
Records have next to zero dynamic range compared to CDs or MP3s.
Furthermore, any pop music is also incredibly compressed. The only music that's sometimes not compressed is orchestral music and sometimes opera.
They have the original multi-track analog tapes in most cases - the quality will be awesome. You don't think they start from an LP do you?
p.s. And, having said that, CDs were mostly never close to the potential of LPs on good gear.
"(1/13/07) There's unofficial and completely unsubstantiated talk that an announcement between Apple and Apple Computer Inc. will be made on, or around Valentine's Day, if all goes according to plan from the rumor we've heard. The announcement will involve "Love," as well. Our source says Apple will have a three month exclusive window for both downloads and remasters. The street release schedule for the remasters was not clear. Conflicting information from our source said that they might be released both all together or in groups, as was done when the first Beatles CDs were released. A compilation is also being discussed, but no firm details are available, the source says."
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/news/113releaserumors.html
I think Steve's keynote showing Beatles in iTunes is higher on the scale of 'proof' than this stuff...
Yes, it looks likely
- how else would Album Art get on the iPhone unless they (Apple Inc) had the rights to it?
You mean had the rights to show it in their presentation?
Hopefully the remasters won't be compressed which seems to be very popular these days:
The best way to get music onto your iPod is to buy the CD's and rip them yourself. That way you can decide whether you use Apple lossless or not or the amount of compression you want. You also dont have to 'wait' for the material to appear in the iTunes store.
I think maybe JLL meant dynamic range compression, which is different from encoding compression.
They have the original multi-track analog tapes in most cases - the quality will be awesome. You don't think they start from an LP do you
But the Beatles music you've always heard has always been incredibly compressed. If they were to play the uncompressed recordings, it would sound (a) like shit and (b) not like the Beatles.
Uncompressed versus compressed audio is like ordering fish at a restaurant and getting sashimi. It's just a different taste, but it's NOT what Beatles fans would be expecting or would want.
In the case of pop music, a better analogy would be like chicken. Unlike fish or beef, raw chicken is dangerously unhealthy, and tastes terrible.
Uncompressed pop is probably one of the least appealing listening experiences you can have.
p.s. And, having said that, CDs were mostly never close to the potential of LPs on good gear.
On good equipment (ie, modern DJ equipment that didn't exist 20, let alone 40 years ago), and a perfect, new record that hasn't been subjected to: time, heat, or ever being played, records peak out at around 70 decibels of dynamic range. Practically, records will never come anywhere near this.
The typical audio CD's range is over 100 decibels.
In other words, a run of the mill CD has a range of over 1,000 times that of the perfect, impossible to achieve record. (Remember, decibels are logarithmic.)
Vinyl is an appallingly bad music distribution medium. Don't make shit up.
"Somebody refresh my memory: I thought the Beatles catalogue had been sold several times, going at least through Michael Jackson? Was that something other than the reproduction rights of the original recordings themselves?"
The Beatles performances have always been owned by the record companies and the Beatles themselves. Michael Jackson (along with Sony) bought the publishing rights, which means if someone else wants to record or perform a Lennon/McCartney song, they have to pay royalties to them.
Thanks, I thought it was something like that.
They have the original multi-track analog tapes in most cases - the quality will be awesome. You don't think they start from an LP do you?
p.s. And, having said that, CDs were mostly never close to the potential of LPs on good gear.
Hey, I just thought of something: what if part of the Beatles deal is higher bitrate downloads? It would make sense-- Apple Corps wanting to present the material in the best possible light (especially if they are remastering them), Apple using the occasion to start to move towards better audio encodes to go with the higher resolution video and AppleTV.
"Introducing the Beatles on iTunes: in high resolution sound that's only somewhat worse the the CDs you already bought!"
But the Beatles music you've always heard has always been incredibly compressed. If they were to play the uncompressed recordings, it would sound (a) like shit and (b) not like the Beatles.
Uncompressed versus compressed audio is like ordering fish at a restaurant and getting sashimi. It's just a different taste, but it's NOT what Beatles fans would be expecting or would want.
In the case of pop music, a better analogy would be like chicken. Unlike fish or beef, raw chicken is dangerously unhealthy, and tastes terrible.
Uncompressed pop is probably one of the least appealing listening experiences you can have.
On good equipment (ie, modern DJ equipment that didn't exist 20, let alone 40 years ago), and a perfect, new record that hasn't been subjected to: time, heat, or ever being played, records peak out at around 70 decibels of dynamic range. Practically, records will never come anywhere near this.
The typical audio CD's range is over 100 decibels.
In other words, a run of the mill CD has a range of over 1,000 times that of the perfect, impossible to achieve record. (Remember, decibels are logarithmic.)
Vinyl is an appallingly bad music distribution medium. Don't make shit up.
Sir, your language is not appropriate in this forum.
It is a far more complex issue that your somewhat arrogant and certainly rude post suggests...
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375592
Sir, your language is not appropriate in this forum. CDs were limited by the digital sampling that was part of the Philips designs that were prematurely rushed out. Digital data is way better than that provided by the original CD standard. Whilst analog media suffered from all sorts of problems it had some advantages over CDs if used on high end equipment. Obviously digital data is these days at another level. I am talking about the 1970s when I owned a recording studio
Right. Digital data can be way better than the original CD standard, and has a dynamic range exceeding the limits of human hearing. Every bit you add to the bit depth adds an extra 6 dB of range.
The original CD specification, what we're talking about, still, and always has had, over 100 dB of range, which is still 1,000 times than vinyl. The fact that other advances have made records sound even worse is irrelevant.
About Philips' issues, originally they wanted 14-bit sampling (versus the 16-bit sampling that ended up being in the final standard, at Sony's insistence). This would have resulted in a product with only around 90 dB of dynamic range, or 100 times better than vinyl.
Sony won though; the CD, even back in 1982, always featured the full 16-bit sampling it does today.
Right. Digital data can be way better than the original CD standard, and has a dynamic range exceeding the limits of human hearing. Every bit you add to the bit depth adds an extra 6 dB of range.
The original CD specification, what we're talking about, still, and always has had, over 100 dB of range, which is still 1,000 times than vinyl. The fact that other advances have made records sound even worse is irrelevant.
About Philips' issues, originally they wanted 14-bit sampling (versus the 16-bit sampling that ended up being in the final standard, at Sony's insistence). This would have resulted in a product with only around 90 dB of dynamic range, or 100 times better than vinyl.
Sony won though; the CD, even back in 1982, always featured the full 16-bit sampling it does today.
No what we are talking about, or I am, was to disagree with you that the Beatle's original recordings will not be able to sound great in the modern digital era due to compression or whatever limitations were around in the 60's.
My premise is by going back to the original master tapes (obviously not the very early stuff) and using modern technology they will be able to create amazing sounds. Let us wait and see shall we?
Sir, your language is not appropriate in this forum.
It is a far more complex issue that your somewhat arrogant and certainly rude post suggests...
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375592
Since you changed your post, I guess I'll respond to that too
"paul_b_18-ga" has one of the most oft-repeated misunderstandings about digital versus analog sound, that digital sampling throws out information that records perfectly preserve. This is untrue.
While the process of sampling does throw out information, so does the process of putting something into plastic. Grooves can only go so deep before the needle gets stuck and breaks. Only so much information can be packed in before the valleys and troughs become smaller than vinyl molecules. Dust, broken pieces of vinyl, warping, and pressing errors introduce "noise" that often overpowers the signal.
This is why vinyl is so bad. Sounds quieter than, say, 50 dB below peak, just can't be heard because they're overwhelmed by noise. To compensate, you have to significantly compress the audio (increase the loudness of the quieter noises) so that these will be heard and not fade out entirely. Also bad for vinyl, if you're playing a record at around 100 dB, you have at least 30 dB of constant noise and hiss, more on cheaper equipment or an older record.
Again, CDs aren't perfect and do have problems, but again, these imperfections aren't noticeable until you crank the CD up painfully loud to begin with, and are likely to be smaller than the imperfections in your sound system. As I stated before, CDs faithfully record over 100 dB of dynamic range.
The only other benefit of vinyl in that thread, by rayljr-ga, is that records can theoretically hold information above 22,500 hertz, whereas CDs clamp them here. While these frequencies, individually, are inaudible to humans, recent research seems to imply that we can hear the effect they have with other, lower frequencies when played simultaneously.
Of course, as rayljr points out, you need a really expensive needle and system to pick these up, but also a record that hasn't been played more than a few times before, since needles will eat away at this information after a few plays.
The only genuine solution to hear these is to go with SACD or DVD-Audio.
No what we are talking about, or I am, was to disagree with you that the Beatle's original recordings will not be able to sound great in the modern digital era due to compression or whatever limitations were around in the 60's.
My premise is by going back to the original master tapes (obviously not the very early stuff) and using modern technology they will be able to create amazing sounds. Let us wait and see shall we?
Well then why didn't you just say that instead of going into some nonsense about how vinyl doesn't completely suck?
Well then why didn't you just say that instead of going into some nonsense about how vinyl doesn't completely suck?
That was a p.s. and slightly tongue in cheek in a way but ... I am one of those that used to be able to (too old now) to hear the difference between a CD and an LP of the same recording on studio quality equipment in the early days.