Yoko Ono: 'Don't hold your breath' for Beatles on Apple's iTunes

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 125
    logicallogical Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SendMe View Post


    It is unlikely then, that I will ever buy another Beatles song.



    Buh Bye, Beatles!



    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.
  • Reply 22 of 125
    rufworkrufwork Posts: 130member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by original article


    Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.



    Other than CDs, you mean.



    (CDs are digital, natch. Without DRM, even! The bitrate is pretty good too. )
  • Reply 23 of 125
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.



    Uh, aren't CDs digital? The more accurate term would be downloadable format.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post


    If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.



    It's not like they'll be releasing any NEW music, so it really shouldn't matter.



    Quite right. I own all the Beatles songs I want already in 160bps AAC. If they released them on iTunes today, they wouldn't get another cent from me anyway.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mobius View Post


    So you'd wish death on another human being just because she's said something that rankles with you? The polar opposite of what her late husband advocated I believe.



    I'm not sure he's saying that at all. Yoko Ono is 77, after all. Like all living beings, her demise is inevitable and quite possibly not too far away. The question is whether she wants to be remembered by older Beatles fans as not only the woman who broke up the band, but also the obstructionist that kept their music from being purchased via legal downloading, despite it already being available from many other sources, both legal and illegal. Or maybe she just doesn't care how she'll be remembered.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logical View Post


    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.



    No, you're an idiot if you let a music act dictate what music you listen to. I'm only allowed to listen to full albums? What if an artist told you you're not allowed to have one of his competitors in the same music collection? Would you accept that decree, too?
  • Reply 24 of 125
    logicallogical Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post


    I really don't understand the fanfare over getting the Beatles music catalog on iTunes.



    If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.



    If you're a new fan, just buy their Greatest Hits cd anywhere for $9.99 and go from there.



    It's not like they'll be releasing any NEW music, so it really shouldn't matter.



    Exactly. They don't want their music on iTunes for the same reason Tool will not add their catalog - individual song downloads. They don't want the negative backlash when individual song downloads are not permitted. I applaud them for sticking to their convictions.
  • Reply 25 of 125
    logicallogical Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kolchak View Post


    uh, aren't cds digital? The more accurate term would be downloadable format.







    Quite right. I own all the beatles songs i want already in 160bps aac. If they released them on itunes today, they wouldn't get another cent from me anyway.







    I'm not sure he's saying that at all. Yoko ono is 77, after all. Like all living beings, her demise is inevitable and quite possibly not too far away. The question is whether she wants to be remembered by older beatles fans as not only the woman who broke up the band, but also the obstructionist that kept their music from being purchased via legal downloading, despite it already being available from many other sources, both legal and illegal. Or maybe she just doesn't care how she'll be remembered.



    no single song downloads. That's the issue. And everyone will complain about that, but that's the issue.
  • Reply 26 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Nassour View Post


    OK, we'll just keep stealing them, then.\



    LOL unfortunately that is the only realistic alternative
  • Reply 27 of 125
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    The Beatles catalogue is available in at least one digital format!
  • Reply 28 of 125
    jonnyboyjonnyboy Posts: 525member
    edit: ok, everyone else spotted that, too
  • Reply 29 of 125
    all this noise just for some 60 years old songs? come on people!!! it's not that they don't wanna put on itunes some new band or some new cool music. I just don't get it. They (beatles, ono, mccartney ) act like if they were the best in the world and they only have some really old music, good music, but still old, nothing new. Songs that everybody knows and that can listen everywhere. Apple should be the one denying beatles to go on itunes now. I hope steve gets mad about this and tells Ono to go selling apples on a train station.



    bye
  • Reply 30 of 125
    ghostface147ghostface147 Posts: 1,629member
    Don't really care much about the Beatles. AC/DC on the other hand...
  • Reply 31 of 125
    iTunes without The Beatles, who cares?
  • Reply 32 of 125
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post


    I really don't understand the fanfare over getting the Beatles music catalog on iTunes.



    If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.



    If you're a new fan, just buy their Greatest Hits cd anywhere for $9.99 and go from there.



    If you are a new fan, you are more likely to find everything you'd want to listen to on the blue album. All the songs you want without trying to chase down the stuff that wasn't originally released on albums (only singles) -- including the only version of Revolution anyone wants to play.



    Personally, I have the remastered CDs from Rubber Soul through Let It Be plus Past Masters ripped to 320k AACs; it's doubtful I'd buy anything Beatles-related from iTunes anyway.



    So it doesn't bother me at this point how hard Yoko tries to screw up everything Beatles related.
  • Reply 33 of 125
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logical View Post


    Exactly. They don't want their music on iTunes for the same reason Tool will not add their catalog - individual song downloads. They don't want the negative backlash when individual song downloads are not permitted. I applaud them for sticking to their convictions.



    Any artist (or their record label) can insist on album-only purchases, on either iTunes or the Amazon MP3 store. Lots of examples of this in either download store.



    No, in this case, it's just Yoko reminding the world yet again how she screwed up the best band of its time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    Don't really care much about the Beatles. AC/DC on the other hand...



    Angus Young has basically said they get a raw deal from their record company for downloads compared to album sales, so they've just refused to allow download sales and instead had most of their catalog priced around the $10 range. There is a fairly shrewd businessman inside that schoolboy uniform.
  • Reply 34 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cggr View Post


    Where's Mark David Chapman when you need him...Gawd youre a pest Ono - surely you cant have too much longer on the planet annoying everyone can you..?



    WOW... new low. I can't even believe you said this.



    On a more related note, just pop your CD into iTunes & go from there.



    Didn't Michael Jackson purchase the catalog many years ago? Maybe he had to sell it when things were tough.
  • Reply 35 of 125
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post


    Legal issues with EMI, the same company that didn't want to give a potential alien race free access to Beatles music.



    (With the launch of the Voyager probe in 1977, NASA, under the suggestion of Carl Sagan, wanted to include "Here Comes the Sun" on the Golden Record. The Beatles loved the idea, but EMI refused to release the rights.)



    If that's true, it's hilarious. Were they worried little grey men would copy the music for free and it'd be a inter-stella pirate hit?
  • Reply 36 of 125
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SendMe View Post


    It is unlikely then, that I will ever buy another Beatles song.



    Buh Bye, Beatles!



    I love the Beatles' music, I was listening to their records since I was 5. There music has been available on CD for 20 years now. Not having the music available as a digital download might affect younger consumer's purchasing decision but the rest of us already have everything we want on CD.
  • Reply 37 of 125
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    depends on the genre of music you listen too..



    Yes, but if you look outside their corresponding genres, Lennon is WAY more influential than Ozzie except maybe the spawing of horrible reality TV shows.
  • Reply 38 of 125
    Don't worry about it Yoko. We'll just download them for free instead.
  • Reply 39 of 125
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cggr View Post


    Gawd youre a pest Ono - surely you cant have too much longer on the planet annoying everyone can you..?



    It's not funny to imply someone should be murdered (your reference to Chapman). It's so easy for someone like you to criticize famous people - what have you ever done? Go back into your hole.
  • Reply 40 of 125
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bigalmac View Post


    Didn't Michael Jackson purchase the catalog many years ago? Maybe he had to sell it when things were tough.



    The record company that originally owned the publishing (i.e. record label) rights to hundreds of Beatles songs (as a UK tax dodge) was divested in 1969, and that is what MJ bought in 1985:



    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-music-library



    Note that publishing rights are a different beast from songwriting rights. Publishing rights are typically owned by the record companies, ostensibly as compensation for album and artist promotion. Publishing rights don't give the owner control of the catalog, they just give them the ability to continually cash royalty checks.



    More background on the subject at snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp
Sign In or Register to comment.