So, for all of the people (including me) who thought that everyone who wanted Beatles music already had it...
#7, #8, and #10 on iTunes most popular albums clearly says otherwise.
I had expected to see lots of people buying the few songs from the White Album, but not to buy the entire album itself.
I wonder what this is going to look like over Christmas. Between new iPods/iPhones/iPads and iTunes gift cards, how high can these go (esp. with Amazon left out of the digital distribution).
In the UK - Beatles albums occupy the number 8 & 9 slots. In Canada the box set at $149.- holds the #5 spot.
For what it is worth, the world reaction of those that can get, it suggests that The Beatles will drive more iPod Touch sales this holiday season than any other factor. And in turn…
Finally, some actual common sense brought to the debate.
It doesn't matter whether you like The Beatles. It doesn't matter whether you already own their music. What matters is that the albums still sell in their millions.
This is a big deal not just for Apple, but for digital music generally. I was faintly ridiculous that the second biggest selling band of the last 10 years wasn't available on-line.
Its not just about sales, nor about SJ's likes. In terms of 'popular music' the Beatles are iconic, revolutionary, pioneering, yet main stream. There's a certain symmetry there.
No its not. Just another self centered post. Its a 'me' mad you don't believe in 'we' etc.
This is simple- some people don't think this is a big deal, some do, its not rocket science. Although not scientific, the simple fact there is mixed opinion should give everyone pause.
A simple 'IMO...' will suffice to cool most peoples jets. Oh, IMO . Jeez happens to me too!
The news that Apple has brought The Beatles to iTunes is great news but people on this forum have seen fit to trash Steve and Apple for it. Apple is the coolest computer company in the world and it's only fitting that now Apple is the *exclusive seller* of the coolest band's (of all time!) digital music on iTunes.
I have to think that you are all Apple fans or else you wouldn't care enough to be on this forum and this latest news is a great thing for Apple and very very cool. At the very least try to appreciate the coolness of this move by Steve to be cutting edge and be the first to get rights to The Beatles music over all the others like Google and Amazon.
Have a beautiful day
Rick in Austin
I also agree, Rick. I'm not a huge fan of The Beatles at all, but I appreciate this move/acquisition by Apple. Considering how reticent Apple Corps, Inc. was in releasing the catalogue to anyone at all, I think the folks at Apple were well within their right to trumpet news of their victory.
What people who don't live in NYC and see the the Post on newstands and even glance through it in doctors offices, the NY Post is about a step ahead of the National Enquirer in value of their news. They print so much that simply isn't true to push their Rupert Murdoch-ness (and always anonymous sources) that if you don't see it picked up by the legit press then I wouldn't call it a legit story.
The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time...
awesome post man, and the excerpt above is simply to make a point:
Our "me, me, me" generation is buying COVER SONGS of Christmas music by the cast of Glee [#2 iTunes bestseller] far more than the all of the Beatles albums combined... so OBVIOUSLY there is a market for things that i personally consider garbage.
I think most of you are missing the most important point. Have you forgotten the long-standing feud between Apple and Apple Corps? It would appear to be over.
(unless there are still on-going lawsuits? I don't know...)
Even if Apple agreed to give 100% of the take to Apple Corps this still represents a milestone in Apple's history and not just because they got the exclusive rights for a year.
I am surprised by all the negativity on this board. I suspect it must be coming from everyone younger than me (I'm 52). Because, I still love The Beatles and have been waiting years for their music to come to iTunes. Welcome! I say.
I own a sports photography company. Following an event I post the photo proofs and participants have two products they can buy from me that would be an interesting parallel to this discussion about CD v digital download.
I sell a "photo CD" product and a "digital download gallery" product. The physical CD is mailed out to the customer and it costs $5.00 less plus there is a $2.49 shipping charge. You would think that since it is a hard copy feel in your hands disc it would actually be the product that is more expensive. So why do they pay more for a digital download of their pictures?
The simple answer is they get immediate gratification with the photo downloaded via zip file instantaneously. No wait period, same as waiting for music CD's from an online vendor like Amazon. There is also the timely process of off loading the music to the computer. For some people even the off load is a nuisance.
For me I'd like to have the CD's but then again I can think of some LP's I've purchased on iTunes.
It's not the negativity that bothers me as much as the self-centered nature of it: "If I'm not interested in the Beatles, then it's not news...or a bad decision by Apple." Reminds me of a recent magazine cover in which they take "We the people..." and change it to "Me, the people..." Everything has become about "me", not others, not the market, not the industry. Personally, I'm not interested in a MacBook Air, because I still do want a machine with an optical drive and large HDD, but that doesn't mean I think Apple shouldn't have produced such a model. I might not be in the market for a 2-seater sports car, but that doesn't mean I think any given car company shouldn't make one.
Not every Apple announcement is about "you" and not every Apple product will be for "you".
I might not personally agree with everything Apple does, and their arrogance is a bit grating, but I recognize that they're incredibly successful, possibly the best-managed large corporation in the world; that they've executed near-perfectly during the worst recession since 1930 and have continued to confound their critics. When Apple makes a decision I disagree with, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because in the end - they've been proven right time after time. If Apple has made any mistakes in the last five years, it has to do with not being able to manufacture enough products to meet demand. Every company should have such a problem.
The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time, their albums continue to sell well as catalog titles year after year and without their tracks, there is a tremendous gap in any digital musical offering. While it's true that most fans would have simply copied tracks from the CDs, there is a whole generation of people who will probably never again purchase a CD. The music is there for them (and for people who buy the new generation of Apple computers that don't have CD readers.) And news reports so far indicate that many Beatles tracks are high on the iTunes charts, so obviously, there are plenty of people who were waiting to be able to download them.
If you're not into the Beatles, fine, don't buy the tracks. But don't take the indefensible (and immature) position that it's meaningless because the music is old. That's like saying that a movie site shouldn't have titles like Metropolis, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.
Very well sail, I applaud you Sir.
The work you are looking for all these moaners is - SELFISH.
Unless it benefits them - they are not interested and worse berate anyone who is.
No offense, but it's this attitude towards music that is very meh. Obviously you are not a true music lover if it has to be current to be considered valuable to you. I don't agree that the only good music is old music, but there is great music created at all times, not just today. Also, people had a very different attitude towards music in the 60s and 70s. Different standards. This doesn't make it better, but does make it very interesting to a real music lover.
So you're saying people who don't have the same musical taste as you are not "true music lovers"? that's quite arrogant. (I know I made a comment about most people being poseurs as the reason for their RECENT purchases of Beatles music even though it has been available in multiple physical formats for nearly 50 years, but that is pretty true.)
If you find a particular type of music good, it shouldn't matter when it came out. The particular style I like (ska/skacore) was big in the mid to late 90's in the US (though it has been around for nearly 50-60 years in the UK) but around 2000, it essentially died. There has been a resurgence in Japan and Europe though. When I went to Tokyo in 2008, an album by the very popular skacore band Kemuri was in the top ten albums sold at Tower records. The scene there is still quite active and actually VERY good.
I think you're main problem is with mainstream music. If that is the case, I totally agree. Essentially all "popular" music is manufactured. It's some guys/girls in a production booth putting together very simplistic and unoriginal music with a pretty face singing or playing it. The record companies have actually worked out a formula to best sell music. Essentially every song created over the past 10 to 15 years has the same formula. They usually have boring verses with very simple, catchy and powerful choruses and the first chorus is ALWAYS around 45 seconds into the song. It must have some correlation with attention span.
"The coolest computer company int he world"...huh. That really isn't saying much. So is Samsung the coolest printer company in the world? Not really great bragging rights.
But really, the Beatles?
I had hoped that the big announcement from yesterday was just a drea. Really Apple? Just the Beatles added to iTunes. While nice (I guess) it didn't warrant such hyperbole. But I guess when you are as rich as God you can waste time and money on anything you want...even if it is a life-long obsession with the Beatles. Thanks Steve, but it isn't like you brought the Beatles' music back after 40 years of total censorship...we can buy the CDs, tapes, minidiscs, LPs, SPs, etc....and have been able to for decades.
Now how about something relevant!!! iOS 4.2?
Apps for the Apple TV or just the ability to actually rent ALL of the iTunes library?
A subscription service for iTunes like the Zune service? 10 songs/month to keep + unlimited music!!!???
I am sure the more serious Apple fanboys can come up with something better than my list.
People here just don't seem to understand. This negativity towards this announcement isn't so much that many folks are ambivalent towards the Beatles' music, but that they are angered that Apple made such a big deal about the announcement. Many of us feel Jobs should be using the time and money towards more important issues related to Apple. To advertise that this news is a day people will never forget is nothing but Jobs' pure self-centered obsession with the Beatles and nothing more.
As I said before, I would much rather have the ability to actually rent the entire iTunes TV and movie library. I returned my Apple TV because (while nice) was so limited as a rental device that it was not worth the money. I (and others) are not going to "rent and delete" a TV show for $1.99. $.99 was acceptable, but $1.99 isn't.
Now THAT would have been worth an announcement (but still not to the point of saying it would be unforgettable).
Also, it was mentioned that buying the CDs requires importing them. Is that so hard? I taught my 94 year-old Mamaw how to import music into iTunes. That argument really has no merit.
What big deal? One image on a web site, that was it, you are over reacting to that?
It's not 'self-centered'. It's an opinion. And I strongly agree with it. Especially the reference to the frequent posts (on pretty much any subject) whereby, after a poster expresses their opinion, they attempt to show that any differing opinion is wrong, often with spurious ("Beatles fans already have the music", "All my friends want an xMac", "I own it I can do anything I want with it") facts.
If all people can come up with is "but I wanted a matte screen... and the Beatles are shit!" then I despair for this forum.
Comments
So, for all of the people (including me) who thought that everyone who wanted Beatles music already had it...
#7, #8, and #10 on iTunes most popular albums clearly says otherwise.
I had expected to see lots of people buying the few songs from the White Album, but not to buy the entire album itself.
I wonder what this is going to look like over Christmas. Between new iPods/iPhones/iPads and iTunes gift cards, how high can these go (esp. with Amazon left out of the digital distribution).
In the UK - Beatles albums occupy the number 8 & 9 slots. In Canada the box set at $149.- holds the #5 spot.
While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.
Just you stick to your 'Lady ga ga' then. rofl
FYI The Beatles have sold more albums worldwide than any other recording artist and their total sales continue to grow on a daily basis.
Finally, some actual common sense brought to the debate.
It doesn't matter whether you like The Beatles. It doesn't matter whether you already own their music. What matters is that the albums still sell in their millions.
This is a big deal not just for Apple, but for digital music generally. I was faintly ridiculous that the second biggest selling band of the last 10 years wasn't available on-line.
Its not just about sales, nor about SJ's likes. In terms of 'popular music' the Beatles are iconic, revolutionary, pioneering, yet main stream. There's a certain symmetry there.
Absolutely brilliant post!
No its not. Just another self centered post. Its a 'me' mad you don't believe in 'we' etc.
This is simple- some people don't think this is a big deal, some do, its not rocket science. Although not scientific, the simple fact there is mixed opinion should give everyone pause.
A simple 'IMO...' will suffice to cool most peoples jets. Oh, IMO
The news that Apple has brought The Beatles to iTunes is great news but people on this forum have seen fit to trash Steve and Apple for it. Apple is the coolest computer company in the world and it's only fitting that now Apple is the *exclusive seller* of the coolest band's (of all time!) digital music on iTunes.
I have to think that you are all Apple fans or else you wouldn't care enough to be on this forum and this latest news is a great thing for Apple and very very cool. At the very least try to appreciate the coolness of this move by Steve to be cutting edge and be the first to get rights to The Beatles music over all the others like Google and Amazon.
Have a beautiful day
Rick in Austin
I also agree, Rick. I'm not a huge fan of The Beatles at all, but I appreciate this move/acquisition by Apple. Considering how reticent Apple Corps, Inc. was in releasing the catalogue to anyone at all, I think the folks at Apple were well within their right to trumpet news of their victory.
In the UK - Beatles albums occupy the number 8 & 9 slots. In Canada the box set at $149.- holds the #5 spot.
As well as, 8, 9, 13.15.22.25.26. 28, 37, 41, 48 and 78.
Early this morning nearly 50 songs out of the top 200 downloaded were by The Beatles.
It would be interesting to see how many more opened their iTunes account since the announcement. And how many were first timers.
The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time...
awesome post man, and the excerpt above is simply to make a point:
Our "me, me, me" generation is buying COVER SONGS of Christmas music by the cast of Glee [#2 iTunes bestseller] far more than the all of the Beatles albums combined... so OBVIOUSLY there is a market for things that i personally consider garbage.
(unless there are still on-going lawsuits? I don't know...)
Even if Apple agreed to give 100% of the take to Apple Corps this still represents a milestone in Apple's history and not just because they got the exclusive rights for a year.
As opposed to Justin Beiber, I suppose.
Meh to your meh.
as opposed to JAY-Z
but the CD complete set is still cheaper than the digital complete set....
http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Stereo.../dp/B002BSHWUU
I own a sports photography company. Following an event I post the photo proofs and participants have two products they can buy from me that would be an interesting parallel to this discussion about CD v digital download.
I sell a "photo CD" product and a "digital download gallery" product. The physical CD is mailed out to the customer and it costs $5.00 less plus there is a $2.49 shipping charge. You would think that since it is a hard copy feel in your hands disc it would actually be the product that is more expensive. So why do they pay more for a digital download of their pictures?
The simple answer is they get immediate gratification with the photo downloaded via zip file instantaneously. No wait period, same as waiting for music CD's from an online vendor like Amazon. There is also the timely process of off loading the music to the computer. For some people even the off load is a nuisance.
For me I'd like to have the CD's but then again I can think of some LP's I've purchased on iTunes.
Rick in Austin
... loves Apple
It's not the negativity that bothers me as much as the self-centered nature of it: "If I'm not interested in the Beatles, then it's not news...or a bad decision by Apple." Reminds me of a recent magazine cover in which they take "We the people..." and change it to "Me, the people..." Everything has become about "me", not others, not the market, not the industry. Personally, I'm not interested in a MacBook Air, because I still do want a machine with an optical drive and large HDD, but that doesn't mean I think Apple shouldn't have produced such a model. I might not be in the market for a 2-seater sports car, but that doesn't mean I think any given car company shouldn't make one.
Not every Apple announcement is about "you" and not every Apple product will be for "you".
I might not personally agree with everything Apple does, and their arrogance is a bit grating, but I recognize that they're incredibly successful, possibly the best-managed large corporation in the world; that they've executed near-perfectly during the worst recession since 1930 and have continued to confound their critics. When Apple makes a decision I disagree with, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because in the end - they've been proven right time after time. If Apple has made any mistakes in the last five years, it has to do with not being able to manufacture enough products to meet demand. Every company should have such a problem.
The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time, their albums continue to sell well as catalog titles year after year and without their tracks, there is a tremendous gap in any digital musical offering. While it's true that most fans would have simply copied tracks from the CDs, there is a whole generation of people who will probably never again purchase a CD. The music is there for them (and for people who buy the new generation of Apple computers that don't have CD readers.) And news reports so far indicate that many Beatles tracks are high on the iTunes charts, so obviously, there are plenty of people who were waiting to be able to download them.
If you're not into the Beatles, fine, don't buy the tracks. But don't take the indefensible (and immature) position that it's meaningless because the music is old. That's like saying that a movie site shouldn't have titles like Metropolis, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.
Very well sail, I applaud you Sir.
The work you are looking for all these moaners is - SELFISH.
Unless it benefits them - they are not interested and worse berate anyone who is.
They should just shut up!
While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It´s getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
Yeah, the Beatles thing itself was cool, but the real news was Apple sticking it into Google, Amazon, twisting, and breaking it off.
This was a major territory marking and flag planting.
No offense, but it's this attitude towards music that is very meh. Obviously you are not a true music lover if it has to be current to be considered valuable to you. I don't agree that the only good music is old music, but there is great music created at all times, not just today. Also, people had a very different attitude towards music in the 60s and 70s. Different standards. This doesn't make it better, but does make it very interesting to a real music lover.
So you're saying people who don't have the same musical taste as you are not "true music lovers"? that's quite arrogant. (I know I made a comment about most people being poseurs as the reason for their RECENT purchases of Beatles music even though it has been available in multiple physical formats for nearly 50 years, but that is pretty true.)
If you find a particular type of music good, it shouldn't matter when it came out. The particular style I like (ska/skacore) was big in the mid to late 90's in the US (though it has been around for nearly 50-60 years in the UK) but around 2000, it essentially died. There has been a resurgence in Japan and Europe though. When I went to Tokyo in 2008, an album by the very popular skacore band Kemuri was in the top ten albums sold at Tower records. The scene there is still quite active and actually VERY good.
I think you're main problem is with mainstream music. If that is the case, I totally agree. Essentially all "popular" music is manufactured. It's some guys/girls in a production booth putting together very simplistic and unoriginal music with a pretty face singing or playing it. The record companies have actually worked out a formula to best sell music. Essentially every song created over the past 10 to 15 years has the same formula. They usually have boring verses with very simple, catchy and powerful choruses and the first chorus is ALWAYS around 45 seconds into the song. It must have some correlation with attention span.
"The coolest computer company int he world"...huh. That really isn't saying much. So is Samsung the coolest printer company in the world? Not really great bragging rights.
But really, the Beatles?
I had hoped that the big announcement from yesterday was just a drea. Really Apple? Just the Beatles added to iTunes. While nice (I guess) it didn't warrant such hyperbole. But I guess when you are as rich as God you can waste time and money on anything you want...even if it is a life-long obsession with the Beatles. Thanks Steve, but it isn't like you brought the Beatles' music back after 40 years of total censorship...we can buy the CDs, tapes, minidiscs, LPs, SPs, etc....and have been able to for decades.
Now how about something relevant!!! iOS 4.2?
Apps for the Apple TV or just the ability to actually rent ALL of the iTunes library?
A subscription service for iTunes like the Zune service? 10 songs/month to keep + unlimited music!!!???
I am sure the more serious Apple fanboys can come up with something better than my list.
People here just don't seem to understand. This negativity towards this announcement isn't so much that many folks are ambivalent towards the Beatles' music, but that they are angered that Apple made such a big deal about the announcement. Many of us feel Jobs should be using the time and money towards more important issues related to Apple. To advertise that this news is a day people will never forget is nothing but Jobs' pure self-centered obsession with the Beatles and nothing more.
As I said before, I would much rather have the ability to actually rent the entire iTunes TV and movie library. I returned my Apple TV because (while nice) was so limited as a rental device that it was not worth the money. I (and others) are not going to "rent and delete" a TV show for $1.99. $.99 was acceptable, but $1.99 isn't.
Now THAT would have been worth an announcement (but still not to the point of saying it would be unforgettable).
Also, it was mentioned that buying the CDs requires importing them. Is that so hard? I taught my 94 year-old Mamaw how to import music into iTunes. That argument really has no merit.
What big deal? One image on a web site, that was it, you are over reacting to that?
Perhaps you need to get a grip on reality!
No its not. Just another self centered post.
It's not 'self-centered'. It's an opinion. And I strongly agree with it. Especially the reference to the frequent posts (on pretty much any subject) whereby, after a poster expresses their opinion, they attempt to show that any differing opinion is wrong, often with spurious ("Beatles fans already have the music", "All my friends want an xMac", "I own it I can do anything I want with it") facts.
If all people can come up with is "but I wanted a matte screen... and the Beatles are shit!" then I despair for this forum.
One has had the ability to purchase the entire catalogue for years now at a other vendors and just rip the music to library.
I have owned the catalogue for a long time....
Beatles on iTunes = meh