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.
Two things
1. "The Beatles" never sued Apple, Apple corps. sued Apple. There is a difference you know.
2. John and George aren't doing much to help the world with their money, but I suppose we can excuse them seeing how they are dead. Though John did a lot in the period between the beatles breakup until his death. Paul McCartney though "obscenely" rich as you put it does in fact use his wealth to help many causes. One of them being the issue of landmines.
It's kind of a bitter poormans mentality that you come across with. The truth is that many (though not all) rich people earned their money fairly and usually give back A LOT to the world.
It's kind of a bitter poormans mentality that you come across with. The truth is that many (though not all) rich people earned their money fairly and usually give back A LOT to the world.
I'd change that "usually" to sometimes.
Yeah, there are some very philanthropic rich folks out there. Heck, even bad 'ol Bill Gates deserves much props here (though I think Melinda's the one who pushed him that way). But I've known plenty of rich folks who could give two sh*** about the poor or disadvantaged. In their particular ideology, poverty is wholly self-inflicted, and "those people" deserve whatever they get.
In the end, rich people are people... some good, some very bad, many in-between.
(though, from my experience in door-to-door charity work and as a 'pizza delivery guy' in college, middle class people actually tip and donate best, especially in proportion to income)
What "sheer amount of work"? I could rip, encode, and upload the entire Beatles catalog in one day using a four-year-old PC. It might take me an additional day to scan album art, but really.
There must be more legal-wrangling going on behind the scenes, because there's no way they should need until next year to get this done.
What "sheer amount of work"? I could rip, encode, and upload the entire Beatles catalog in one day using a four-year-old PC. It might take me an additional day to scan album art, but really.
There must be more legal-wrangling going on behind the scenes, because there's no way they should need until next year to get this done.
Sure, I could do it too.
But, is your encoder as sophisticated as theirs? Are you encoding it at either 24 or 32 bits, at high rates, such as 96, or possibly 192 KBs, and only after listening to each song carefully time after time, correcting, and eliminating noise, and other problems, bringing it down to what we will use?
Are you looking at the Masters, and reworking the balances for the new encoded medium?
Are you searching the archives for the images they are? Are you going over the legal difficulties of getting all of the copyright holders to sign?
Remastering Beatles tracks so we can download them in a format that is inferior to CD?
What's the point?
Seconded.
I'm a fan, but what's so life-changing about having Beatles added to the iTunes Store? All the music is currently for sale elsewhere, not locked in a vault. Most of it's been constantly available in then-current format for 40+ years. I'm sure they'll do a tidy business, but geez. If I'm that hot for it I've imported it already.
I'm a fan, but what's so life-changing about having Beatles added to the iTunes Store? All the music is currently for sale elsewhere, not locked in a vault. Most of it's been constantly available in then-current format for 40+ years. I'm sure they'll do a tidy business, but geez. If I'm that hot for it I've imported it already.
Let's see.
Almost all of the 2.5+ billion songs that Apple has sold over iTunes is available elsewhere, namely CD's, though some may be only available on vinyl.
Going by what you and Dreamworx are saying, none of that should have been encoded at a lower quality to sell over iTunes, because it's available elsewhere.
... that it's as compelling as any other of those 2.5 billion other downloads.
Beatles music is great, but it's not rare. There's nothing to wait for, really, except the next round of higher-quality remasters. I'm sure they'll be one of the top-selling bands on iTunes... but it's just adding a distribution channel, like discount stores or music retail.
... that it's as compelling as any other of those 2.5 billion other downloads.
Beatles music is great, but it's not rare. There's nothing to wait for, really, except the next round of higher-quality remasters. I'm sure they'll be one of the top-selling bands on iTunes... but it's just adding a distribution channel, like discount stores or music retail.
That is the point. That they are adding a new distribution channel. Apple is now the forth largest music distributor in the country, or is it the third?
It's also the fastest growing.
CD sales were down 22% this year. 22%!!! We're not talking a few percent a year anymore. The handwriting is on the wall, so to speak.
I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.
I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.
Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
I don't know about "desperately", but there's certainly plenty of people who want Beatles music but prefer the convenience and lower cost of iTunes
Also consider that Jobs is going to push it pretty hard once it does happen. The Beatles are his favorite band, and Apple is named for the Beatle's record label (Apple Corps). If you thought Apple promoted U2 pretty hard, you ain't seen anything yet.
I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.
Was it necessary to find every thread from over the past year that had anything at all to do with the Beatles and post a link to an **admittedly** spoofed youtube video?!?!
D
P.S. I guess I can answer my own question with "Yes DaveGee, schillid thought it was necessary"
Also consider that Jobs is going to push it pretty hard once it does happen. The Beatles are his favorite band, and Apple is named for the Beatle's record label (Apple Corps).
Don't worry, you will.
I'm pretty confident there will be a major media promotion, with strong opening sales and that the Beatles will settle in as one of the, if not the top catalog artists available.
When I say pent-up demand, I mean in the sense that people have really been waiting for this. If Apple announced they would have exclusivity for the long out of print Buckingham Nicks album, or US distribution rights for Disney's Song of the South, that's what I mean by pent-up demand. There was a years-long delay in releasing the soundtrack to Heavy Metal on CD. Queen changed US labels in the US in the early 90's and so there was a period where their albums were not readily available except on import, then they popped with the re-releases and Wayne's World name checking. They would have to pull Beatles CDs from sale for a few years to approach that. (Obviously the size of the fan bases are not comparable.) But anybody today who wants to listen to the Beatles in iTunes can do it, tonight. It's the disconnect between "I must have it" and "I must wait for it on iTunes" that I don't get.
It will be a big deal, because the Beatles and Apple and iTunes are big deals. But I don't think it will have the same impact as say the release of the albums on CD in the 80s because of the lower quality of AAC compared to the lossless file. When the audio quality on downloads surpasses that standard I could see the similar mass album re-purchasing again.
I'm pretty confident there will be a major media promotion, with strong opening sales and that the Beatles will settle in as one of the, if not the top catalog artists available.
Agreed.
Quote:
When I say pent-up demand, I mean in the sense that people have really been waiting for this. If Apple announced they would have exclusivity for the long out of print Buckingham Nicks album, or US distribution rights for Disney's Song of the South, that's what I mean by pent-up demand.
Are you sure? Have you actually listened to Buckingham Nicks? Its not a great album by any stretch, and I say that as a Fleetwood Mac fan (some tracks are so schmaltzy as to be actively painful to listen to). I have a hard time visualizing a lot of people waiting breathlessly for it, but I guess there's a few fanatics who'll buy anything.
Quote:
But anybody today who wants to listen to the Beatles in iTunes can do it, tonight.
Are you referring to internet radio via iTunes? Because there's only one Beatles album available for sale on iTunes currently, the one they did very early on with Tony Sheridan.
Quote:
It will be a big deal, because the Beatles and Apple and iTunes are big deals. But I don't think it will have the same impact as say the release of the albums on CD in the 80s because of the lower quality of AAC compared to the lossless file. When the audio quality on downloads surpasses that standard I could see the similar mass album re-purchasing again.
Well, you agree that it WILL be a big deal, so I guess we're just quibbling over whether it will be a REALLY BIG DEAL, or just merely a BIG DEAL (or something in between).
I don't think that's something to really worry about, more like something to sit back and watch happen, and be pleasantly surprised either way.
Are you sure? Have you actually listened to Buckingham Nicks?
I've never heard it actually (I'm a FM fan more in the Rumours + Greatest Hits sense) just that it's one of those legendary unavailable albums that a fan can't just go out and buy, compared to Beatles albums. Of course, there are a lot more casual Beatles fans than hard-core 'Mac fans.
Quote:
Are you referring to internet radio via iTunes? Because there's only one Beatles album available for sale on iTunes currently, the one they did very early on with Tony Sheridan.
No, just that Beatles CDs can be be imported by the user, and if a big enough fan presumably the user has those. Me personally - I'm looking forward to remastered albums. I'd rather buy the CDs however so I have more flexibility with computers, playback, etc. with high quality files than buying the 128 or 256 kbps file at a similar price.
Quote:
Well, you agree that it WILL be a big deal, so I guess we're just quibbling over whether it will be a REALLY BIG DEAL, or just merely a BIG DEAL (or something in between).
Trust me, aside from one or two tracks, you don't want to.
Quote:
No, just that Beatles CDs can be be imported by the user
From CD. Yeah, that's a given. The point is, for purchasing Beatles music, iTunes has an advantage in convenience and price over CD. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, i.e. billions of songs sold.
Quote:
I'm sure the commercials will be SPECTACULAR...
Right you are. I'm sure they'll have some clever angle. The only question is, will the commercials be merely good, or 'iconically' good... a commercial you'll remember for years, like the 'Mean Joe Greene' Coke commercial or Apple's '1984' ad?
From CD. Yeah, that's a given. The point is, for purchasing Beatles music, iTunes has an advantage in convenience and price over CD. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, i.e. billions of songs sold.
Hmmm, I agree, iTunes Store has many advantages, but one aspect of the Beatles brand colors my revenue anticipation. I'm assuming that, as a percentage of potential customers, most "serious" Beatles fans are over 30. This would imply that most "serious" fans come from a CD-buying tradition and have had the time and income to satisfy their most pressing Beatles needs. I see this group as likely excited about having the remastered albums, but unless iTs offers items they can't get elsewhere, this group is less likely to have the immediate demand to repurchase online.
"Casual" Beatles fans, on the other hand, may have none of the albums, and I think they'll end up buying most of the tracks sold. As the music market develops further over the coming years I imagine most "serious" Beatles fans will in fact initially experience the music from an online source as well.
Comments
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.
Two things
1. "The Beatles" never sued Apple, Apple corps. sued Apple. There is a difference you know.
2. John and George aren't doing much to help the world with their money, but I suppose we can excuse them seeing how they are dead. Though John did a lot in the period between the beatles breakup until his death. Paul McCartney though "obscenely" rich as you put it does in fact use his wealth to help many causes. One of them being the issue of landmines.
It's kind of a bitter poormans mentality that you come across with. The truth is that many (though not all) rich people earned their money fairly and usually give back A LOT to the world.
It's kind of a bitter poormans mentality that you come across with. The truth is that many (though not all) rich people earned their money fairly and usually give back A LOT to the world.
I'd change that "usually" to sometimes.
Yeah, there are some very philanthropic rich folks out there. Heck, even bad 'ol Bill Gates deserves much props here (though I think Melinda's the one who pushed him that way). But I've known plenty of rich folks who could give two sh*** about the poor or disadvantaged. In their particular ideology, poverty is wholly self-inflicted, and "those people" deserve whatever they get.
In the end, rich people are people... some good, some very bad, many in-between.
(though, from my experience in door-to-door charity work and as a 'pizza delivery guy' in college, middle class people actually tip and donate best, especially in proportion to income)
.
What's the point?
It appears the comments about the legal aspects far outweigh any interest in the quality of the music.
There must be more legal-wrangling going on behind the scenes, because there's no way they should need until next year to get this done.
What "sheer amount of work"? I could rip, encode, and upload the entire Beatles catalog in one day using a four-year-old PC. It might take me an additional day to scan album art, but really.
There must be more legal-wrangling going on behind the scenes, because there's no way they should need until next year to get this done.
Sure, I could do it too.
But, is your encoder as sophisticated as theirs? Are you encoding it at either 24 or 32 bits, at high rates, such as 96, or possibly 192 KBs, and only after listening to each song carefully time after time, correcting, and eliminating noise, and other problems, bringing it down to what we will use?
Are you looking at the Masters, and reworking the balances for the new encoded medium?
Are you searching the archives for the images they are? Are you going over the legal difficulties of getting all of the copyright holders to sign?
Just how would you do it?
Remastering Beatles tracks so we can download them in a format that is inferior to CD?
What's the point?
Seconded.
I'm a fan, but what's so life-changing about having Beatles added to the iTunes Store? All the music is currently for sale elsewhere, not locked in a vault. Most of it's been constantly available in then-current format for 40+ years. I'm sure they'll do a tidy business, but geez. If I'm that hot for it I've imported it already.
Seconded.
I'm a fan, but what's so life-changing about having Beatles added to the iTunes Store? All the music is currently for sale elsewhere, not locked in a vault. Most of it's been constantly available in then-current format for 40+ years. I'm sure they'll do a tidy business, but geez. If I'm that hot for it I've imported it already.
Let's see.
Almost all of the 2.5+ billion songs that Apple has sold over iTunes is available elsewhere, namely CD's, though some may be only available on vinyl.
Going by what you and Dreamworx are saying, none of that should have been encoded at a lower quality to sell over iTunes, because it's available elsewhere.
And so, your point is?
And so, your point is?
... that it's as compelling as any other of those 2.5 billion other downloads.
Beatles music is great, but it's not rare. There's nothing to wait for, really, except the next round of higher-quality remasters. I'm sure they'll be one of the top-selling bands on iTunes... but it's just adding a distribution channel, like discount stores or music retail.
... that it's as compelling as any other of those 2.5 billion other downloads.
Beatles music is great, but it's not rare. There's nothing to wait for, really, except the next round of higher-quality remasters. I'm sure they'll be one of the top-selling bands on iTunes... but it's just adding a distribution channel, like discount stores or music retail.
That is the point. That they are adding a new distribution channel. Apple is now the forth largest music distributor in the country, or is it the third?
It's also the fastest growing.
CD sales were down 22% this year. 22%!!! We're not talking a few percent a year anymore. The handwriting is on the wall, so to speak.
Online is required now.
Online is required now.
I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.
I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.
Well, we'll just have to wait to see, right?
Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
I don't know about "desperately", but there's certainly plenty of people who want Beatles music but prefer the convenience and lower cost of iTunes
Also consider that Jobs is going to push it pretty hard once it does happen. The Beatles are his favorite band, and Apple is named for the Beatle's record label (Apple Corps). If you thought Apple promoted U2 pretty hard, you ain't seen anything yet.
I don't see the pent-up demand.
Don't worry, you will.
.
I agree, but since it's all available easily enough to any semi-interested fan, I don't see the pent-up demand. Are there people who desperately want Beatles music but have to wait until the iTunes Store sells it?
Rather like selling Harry Potter books on Amazon. Jolly enough for everyone, big sellers for a big player, but its not as though there aren't other books and other places to buy books.
word...
BEATLES + ITUNES : Two Apples
Was it necessary to find every thread from over the past year that had anything at all to do with the Beatles and post a link to an **admittedly** spoofed youtube video?!?!
D
P.S. I guess I can answer my own question with "Yes DaveGee, schillid thought it was necessary"
Well, we'll just have to wait to see, right?
Also consider that Jobs is going to push it pretty hard once it does happen. The Beatles are his favorite band, and Apple is named for the Beatle's record label (Apple Corps).
Don't worry, you will.
I'm pretty confident there will be a major media promotion, with strong opening sales and that the Beatles will settle in as one of the, if not the top catalog artists available.
When I say pent-up demand, I mean in the sense that people have really been waiting for this. If Apple announced they would have exclusivity for the long out of print Buckingham Nicks album, or US distribution rights for Disney's Song of the South, that's what I mean by pent-up demand. There was a years-long delay in releasing the soundtrack to Heavy Metal on CD. Queen changed US labels in the US in the early 90's and so there was a period where their albums were not readily available except on import, then they popped with the re-releases and Wayne's World name checking. They would have to pull Beatles CDs from sale for a few years to approach that. (Obviously the size of the fan bases are not comparable.) But anybody today who wants to listen to the Beatles in iTunes can do it, tonight. It's the disconnect between "I must have it" and "I must wait for it on iTunes" that I don't get.
It will be a big deal, because the Beatles and Apple and iTunes are big deals. But I don't think it will have the same impact as say the release of the albums on CD in the 80s because of the lower quality of AAC compared to the lossless file. When the audio quality on downloads surpasses that standard I could see the similar mass album re-purchasing again.
I'm pretty confident there will be a major media promotion, with strong opening sales and that the Beatles will settle in as one of the, if not the top catalog artists available.
Agreed.
When I say pent-up demand, I mean in the sense that people have really been waiting for this. If Apple announced they would have exclusivity for the long out of print Buckingham Nicks album, or US distribution rights for Disney's Song of the South, that's what I mean by pent-up demand.
Are you sure? Have you actually listened to Buckingham Nicks? Its not a great album by any stretch, and I say that as a Fleetwood Mac fan (some tracks are so schmaltzy as to be actively painful to listen to). I have a hard time visualizing a lot of people waiting breathlessly for it, but I guess there's a few fanatics who'll buy anything.
But anybody today who wants to listen to the Beatles in iTunes can do it, tonight.
Are you referring to internet radio via iTunes? Because there's only one Beatles album available for sale on iTunes currently, the one they did very early on with Tony Sheridan.
It will be a big deal, because the Beatles and Apple and iTunes are big deals. But I don't think it will have the same impact as say the release of the albums on CD in the 80s because of the lower quality of AAC compared to the lossless file. When the audio quality on downloads surpasses that standard I could see the similar mass album re-purchasing again.
Well, you agree that it WILL be a big deal, so I guess we're just quibbling over whether it will be a REALLY BIG DEAL, or just merely a BIG DEAL (or something in between).
I don't think that's something to really worry about, more like something to sit back and watch happen, and be pleasantly surprised either way.
.
Are you sure? Have you actually listened to Buckingham Nicks?
I've never heard it actually (I'm a FM fan more in the Rumours + Greatest Hits sense) just that it's one of those legendary unavailable albums that a fan can't just go out and buy, compared to Beatles albums. Of course, there are a lot more casual Beatles fans than hard-core 'Mac fans.
Are you referring to internet radio via iTunes? Because there's only one Beatles album available for sale on iTunes currently, the one they did very early on with Tony Sheridan.
No, just that Beatles CDs can be be imported by the user, and if a big enough fan presumably the user has those. Me personally - I'm looking forward to remastered albums. I'd rather buy the CDs however so I have more flexibility with computers, playback, etc. with high quality files than buying the 128 or 256 kbps file at a similar price.
Well, you agree that it WILL be a big deal, so I guess we're just quibbling over whether it will be a REALLY BIG DEAL, or just merely a BIG DEAL (or something in between).
I'm sure the commercials will be SPECTACULAR...
I've never heard it actually
Trust me, aside from one or two tracks, you don't want to.
No, just that Beatles CDs can be be imported by the user
From CD. Yeah, that's a given. The point is, for purchasing Beatles music, iTunes has an advantage in convenience and price over CD. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, i.e. billions of songs sold.
I'm sure the commercials will be SPECTACULAR...
Right you are. I'm sure they'll have some clever angle. The only question is, will the commercials be merely good, or 'iconically' good... a commercial you'll remember for years, like the 'Mean Joe Greene' Coke commercial or Apple's '1984' ad?
.
From CD. Yeah, that's a given. The point is, for purchasing Beatles music, iTunes has an advantage in convenience and price over CD. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, i.e. billions of songs sold.
Hmmm, I agree, iTunes Store has many advantages, but one aspect of the Beatles brand colors my revenue anticipation. I'm assuming that, as a percentage of potential customers, most "serious" Beatles fans are over 30. This would imply that most "serious" fans come from a CD-buying tradition and have had the time and income to satisfy their most pressing Beatles needs. I see this group as likely excited about having the remastered albums, but unless iTs offers items they can't get elsewhere, this group is less likely to have the immediate demand to repurchase online.
"Casual" Beatles fans, on the other hand, may have none of the albums, and I think they'll end up buying most of the tracks sold. As the music market develops further over the coming years I imagine most "serious" Beatles fans will in fact initially experience the music from an online source as well.