Beatles on iTunes set for 2008

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
The widow of Fab Four guitarist George Harrison has revealed that the music group's catalog should be available by next year.



Olivia Harrison told Reuters on Friday that the work of her late husband and his bandmates was finally on a fast track to music stores like Apple Inc.'s iTunes now that multiple artistic and legal hurdles have been tackled.



"We just have a few things to work out elsewhere," she said.



Though hopeful for a release before the end of 2007, she added that the sheer amount of work might push the online listing to 2008.



The Beatles' music label, Apple Corps, had not only to settle its naming dispute with iTunes operator Apple Inc. but to finish the Cirque du Soleil show Love, remaster the original recordings for better quality, and create a deluxe presentation to revitalize interest.



"That's a big job," Harrison said. "That means you have to go back through all the archives and find great photographs and really give a nice package to the fans."



The retirement of the pioneering Apple Corps manager Neil Aspinall was also said to have contributed to the acceleration of the project, as new label head Jeff Jones intended to "pick up the pace" on transferring Beatles albums to the online medium.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    2008.. these Beatles can go shove it as far as I'm concerned. They obviously don't realise they are encouraging piracy of their music. Now get George Harrison on iTunes pronto! Ok so I commented without restraint, and didn't read the article, but you can only take some much of these Beatles stories.
  • Reply 2 of 48
    Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.
  • Reply 3 of 48
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Are they trying to release it in one batch? That seems unecessary unless they are trying to make it a bargain bundle like they did with U2 and a few others.
  • Reply 4 of 48
    nevenmrgannevenmrgan Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Though hopeful for a release before the end of 2007, she added that the sheer amount of work might push the online listing to 2008.



    "That's a big job," Harrison said. "That means you have to go back through all the archives and find great photographs and really give a nice package to the fans."



    The brain-aching irony here is that the Beatles managed to release SIX ALBUMS in one year (1966).
  • Reply 5 of 48
    jmadlenajmadlena Posts: 43member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by toneloco28 View Post


    Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.



    I think some people are forgetting that:



    a) Two of the Beatles have passed, and therefore they can no longer 'tak[e] themselves entirely too seriously,' or slow down the progress of the digital distribution of their music, and



    b) They are still completely relevant to the landscape of today's music. They made music what it is today, and if we forget about them, and others like them, we will have a music dead space like that of the 90's. I for one wish music would move back towards that Beatlesque style; a large portion of mainstream music is entirely talentless. And lastly,



    c) We ought to be grateful that they made their music.



    Long live Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and God rest John Lennon, and George Harrison's souls.
  • Reply 6 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jmadlena View Post


    Long live Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and God rest John Lennon, and George Harrison's souls.



    What, no long live Yoko Ono?
  • Reply 7 of 48
    tarbhtarbh Posts: 1member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by toneloco28 View Post


    Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.



    Are you on something? The Beatles are pop music. They are as relevant to music today as Da Vinici is to art.

    These releases will be great. Jeff Jones has looked after the reissues and remasters of everyone at Sony/Legacy from Bob Dylan to AC/DC, he just started this job and needs some time to get it all together.
  • Reply 8 of 48
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by toneloco28 View Post


    Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.



    "It was twenty years ago today,

    Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play

    They've been going in and out of style

    But they're guaranteed to raise a smile

    So may I introduce to you

    The act you'vd known for all these years

    Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band...."



    'It was 40 years ago today that "Sgt. Pepper" was released in Great Britain (June 2, 1967 in US stores). By most accounts, it stands as the finest most groundbreaking work created by the fab four and producer, George Martin. As their masterpiece, it also stands as the masterpiece of pop music.



    For many American teenagers coming of age that year, "Sgt. Pepper" was a life altering experience, it's release a historically significant moment.'



    That came from my hometown's newspaper's "Daily Break" section. I live in a modest city in America. It's not big like New York City or LA and it's not the sticks either, and I can't speak for the New York Times or the LA Times, but my little newspaper took note of this date and it's historical significance regarding The Beatles and their work on "Sgt. Pepper", even if it was a 'puff piece' that was issued for papers across this nation, if they cared, to run it or not.



    I can't really recall a write up of any band past, like Elvis or The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd or present, take your pick, that my newspaper or any paper pay homage to a significant piece of their work and the profound effect it had at the time and for the future.



    Not bad for somebody who is 'hardly relevant these days and that they ought to be grateful that somebody still cares", I know you're not necessarily ripping The Beatles, and you complimented and acknowledge them as musicians, their body of work and their status as pop icons, but I think you are wrong with your comments towards the end of your post. Just my .02
  • Reply 9 of 48
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    "It was twenty years ago today,

    Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play

    They've been going in and out of style

    But they're guaranteed to raise a smile

    So may I introduce to you

    The act you'vd known for all these years

    Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band...."



    'It was 40 years ago today that "Sgt. Pepper" was released in Great Britain (June 2, 1967 in US stores). By most accounts, it stands as the finest most groundbreaking work created by the fab four and producer, George Martin. As their masterpiece, it also stands as the masterpiece of pop music.



    For many American teenagers coming of age that year, "Sgt. Pepper" was a life altering experience, it's release a historically significant moment.'



    That came from my hometown's newspaper's "Daily Break" section. I live in a modest city in America. It's not big like New York City or LA and it's not the sticks either, and I can't speak for the New York Times or the LA Times, but my little newspaper took note of this date and it's historical significance regarding The Beatles and their work on "Sgt. Pepper", even if it was a 'puff piece' that was issued for papers across this nation, if they cared, to run it or not.



    I can't really recall a write up of any band past, like Elvis or The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd or present, take your pick, that my newspaper or any paper pay homage to a significant piece of their work and the profound effect it had at the time and for the future.



    Not bad for somebody who is 'hardly relevant these days and that they ought to be grateful that somebody still cares", I know you're not necessarily ripping The Beatles, and you complimented and acknowledge them as musicians, their body of work and their status as pop icons, but I think you are wrong with your comments towards the end of your post. Just my .02



    Agreed!



    I won a single of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", back when they first came out. It was a simple question, "How many species of beetles are there in the world? I was thirteen. What a strong influence they were on everyone, at that time, and even now.



    The importance of the Beatles can't be overestimated.
  • Reply 10 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by toneloco28 View Post


    Just put the damn music on already! The Beatles appear to be taking themselves entirely too serious. While they are pop icon legends, their hardly relevant these days. I'm not discounting their impressive body of work, but they ought to be grateful someone still cares.



    The day the Beatles become irrelevant will be the day the world ends.



    You are pretty ignorant.
  • Reply 11 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post


    The day the Beatles become irrelevant will be the day the world ends.



    You are pretty ignorant.



    Calm down chief!



    HAHA! Okay, let me clarify my position on the Beatles. I am fully aware of the "impact" they had on pop music and the fanaticism displayed by their fans; both past and present. I am also fully within my rights to discern how relevant or influential they are to "myself" compared to other artist of the same period who I feel were just as talented. Music is highly subjective so I'm not going to get into an argument over semantics.



    What my main point was, while obviously not communicated well, was that from my experiences the Beatles have a history of acting like the world is indebted unto them; and being quite resistant to change. Lest not forget that they sued Apple, along with numerous other companies, over what I consider to be patently ridiculous allegations. They are all either presently or posthumously obscenely wealthy, but strike me as somewhat money hungry. The dudes aren't curing cancer or otherwise some noteworthy history altering event, so when I say they should be grateful; it is because as musicians to stand the test of time as they have done, is both an enormous achievement and a PRIVILEGE. They are obviously "relevant" in a historical context and justifiably so, but it could be nothing for people to stop caring about them, and it seems they don't respect that. Just imho.



    Anyways, the comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek so sorry for offending some of you lmao.
  • Reply 12 of 48
    icibaquicibaqu Posts: 278member
    i actually think harrison's wife's point is a good one. if one day suddenly the beatles catalogue of music was available for download with no real fanfair, then who would really give a crap. it'd be like *browse**browse**browse**"hey the beatles are online. cool.**browse**browse**. . .



    that's entirely different than remastered music with all new artwork and photos, some videos that come bundled for download and maybe the chance to win something.
  • Reply 13 of 48
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tarbh View Post


    Are you on something? The Beatles are pop music. They are as relevant to music today as Da Vinici is to art.



    In both circumstances, they are history and mainly interesting from a historical perspective. Their works have been available for some time, though one longer than the other, but the point is that Beatles works are two generations old now. Those works are known, static and the people that want their personal copies of those works, probably have them already and might be happy enough with the CD, and may not be interested in re-buying on a fourth or fifth format. Even with the (second?) remaster, I wonder how many remaining Beatles fans will upgrade?



    Quote:

    These releases will be great. Jeff Jones has looked after the reissues and remasters of everyone at Sony/Legacy from Bob Dylan to AC/DC, he just started this job and needs some time to get it all together.



    Why did it take so long to secure this person and get him started? I thought this work started over a year ago.
  • Reply 14 of 48
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.



    Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.
  • Reply 15 of 48
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,005member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.



    Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.



    I wouldn't bet your shirt on the number of over 50s Apple sell to including iPods, music and Macs. We are a force to be reckoned with
  • Reply 16 of 48
    kukitokukito Posts: 113member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.



    Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.



    Go to iTunes Plus. 11 of the top 20 downloads are Paul McCartney songs. However, if people want Beatles would it kill them to go to Amazon, buy the CD and rip the songs?
  • Reply 17 of 48
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.



    Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.



    Trust me, plenty of people under 50 care.
  • Reply 18 of 48
    joncojonco Posts: 25member
    I'm over 50 and for me the Beatles were closer to top 40- than the bands I picked as my world changers: The Who and The Kinks. I played in a few abands in the mid 60's and early 70's. I don't remember any local band (and there were a lot of them) that tried to look or sound like George or John, but there were a lot of Pete wannabes. Hey, it's only music... And it's only made to dance to and shouldn't be taken to heart...
  • Reply 19 of 48
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Nobody under 50 cares, and that's most of the iTunes customer base.



    Publish it on iTunes and see what happens... you'll sell like 6 tracks, and 5 of them will be to Steve Jobs.



    I'm well under 50 (Gen Xer) and I care. I'm looking forward to cherry-picking the hell out of their catalog, and making some interesting Beatles-only playlists. Though to be fair, they are one of the few groups who put out albums where almost every song was good.



    Don't kid yourself... when they hit iTunes, their tracks will sell, sell, sell. Boomers will have some gaps in their Beatles' collections they'll want to fill economically and conveniently, and some younger folks will dload their stuff out of curiousity, to see what the 'big deal' is.



    Ironically, a whole new generation might be turned on to their music to some extent. History could repeat itself a bit...



    .
  • Reply 20 of 48
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kukito View Post


    However, if people want Beatles would it kill them to go to Amazon, buy the CD and rip the songs?



    No, it wouldn't kill them. It'd just be more expensive in some cases, that's all.



    .
Sign In or Register to comment.