Apple obtained exclusive rights to Beatles over Google, Amazon

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 117
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    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.



    Excellent post, but unfortunately wasted on the ones who only seem to live to tear down others instead of trying to build themselves up. I will never understand the idea of taking the time to post such negative thoughts about something they say they are not even interested in ..... says a lot about the poster, imho, none of which a good thing.
  • Reply 82 of 117
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post


    Sorry to show my ignorance, but what exactly is Justin Bieber?



    Let's just say that you should be thanking God for your ignorance on that one. Trust me.
  • Reply 83 of 117
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    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.



    Apple put up a small announcement on their webpage ... no press conference ... no newspaper adds. We made it into a big deal .... not Apple. Try taking off the "hate everything Apple" glasses and start seeing things for what they are .... not what you'd like them to be.
  • Reply 84 of 117
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Not_Sure View Post


    So you're saying people who don't have the same musical taste as you are not "true music lovers"? that's quite arrogant..



    If you read not only his post, but the post he was replying to ... (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.) ... I think you'll agree that his post was relative and not "quite arrogant" at all,
  • Reply 85 of 117
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    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.



    Curious. Which magazine was that?
  • Reply 86 of 117
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    One image on a website??!! Get a grip, Wonder! It's obvious from a great number of the posts on AI that this was built up for weeks with full page ads in every major paper, 3 minute spots every hour on every major network for the past month and 10,000 billboard ads across the US...



    I'll never trust Apple again...



    I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, but do this "old fart" a favor in the future please. .... use the sarcasm icon so people as slow to catch on as me don't blow a gasket before we "figure it out". This is a result of "losing my hair". ... there's nothing to slow the thought down as it goes whizzing by my head. lol
  • Reply 87 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    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.



    This statement totally reflects my opinion, especially the first 2 paragraphs.



    Well written and stated.
  • Reply 88 of 117
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,596member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandor View Post


    but the CD complete set is still cheaper than the digital complete set....



    If you buy from the right places, most CDs are less expensive than their digital equivalents, but most people buying digital tracks these days are buying singles. There are plenty of back-catalog CD titles that sell for as little as $5 and have anywhere from 12 (if they're straight copies of LPs with no bonus tracks) to 20 or more tracks (if they were compilations designed for CD).



    And places like J&R, in addition to having backlist titles from $5 generally sell new releases for $12-$13. That's still far cheaper than digital tracks if you want all the tracks.



    Here are a few of the titles J&R is currently selling for $6:

    Bad - Michael Jackson (remastered version)

    Off The Wall - Michael Jackson (remastered version)

    Dangerous - Michael Jackson (remastered version)

    The Best of Sam Cooke

    Tapestry - Carole King

    Kind of Blue - Miles Davis

    Abraxas - Santana

    Purple Rain - Prince

    Darkness On The Edge of Town - Bruce Springsteen

    Greetings from Asbury Park NJ - Bruce Springsteen

    the Very Best of Solomon Burke



    They've got almost 10,000 titles priced below $6, another 9000 priced between $6 and $7.99 and over 18,000 priced between $8 and $10.99. Sure, most are older titles, but one could build a killer music library at relatively low cost with these CDs.
  • Reply 89 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic, but do this "old fart" a favor in the future please. .... use the sarcasm icon so people as slow to catch on as me don't blow a gasket before we "figure it out". This is a result of "losing my hair". ... there's nothing to slow the thought down as it goes whizzing by my head. lol



    As one who also comes from an era when Cambrian was just a twinkle in someone's eye... I understand fully.



    I shall use <sarcasm> in the future. (please note that it is not being used now )
  • Reply 90 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post




    Not every Apple announcement is about "you" and not every Apple product will be for "you".

    .



    +1...well said!!!
  • Reply 91 of 117
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    As one who also comes from an era when Cambrian was just a twinkle in someone's eye... I understand fully.



    I shall use <sarcasm> in the future. (please note that it is not being used now )



    Cool .... thanks.
  • Reply 92 of 117
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    . . . or some of that 'everything.' Referring to the tagline on the Apple website after the announcement: "The band that changed everything," why is no one objecting to that piece of (seeming) hyperbole? Like they did with that flat little statement that you will not forget this day, before the announcement. Here's an example of hyper-reaction to Apple's 'hype:'



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post


    The trashing of Apple isn't just because they now sell Beatles tunes - or whether that's a big deal or not. It's the fact that Apple loudly proclaimed that it was a big deal. That it was a day you'd remember forever. That was a little bit over the top.



    Loudly? But here is how you people who like Apple but don't get how they played this coup- of-all-possible iTunes coups ('coup' = 'stroke,' as in stroke of genius) can process your outrage:



    For those of us who were around and sentient when the Beatles first arrived, it would be impossible to exaggerate the cultural shift that occurred. I'll put it simply: it was the end of the American white-bread culture that had strangled us mentally since the late 40s. Ginsberg and the Beats had been working on this problem, and Dylan and Seeger following Guthrie were too, but the Beatles finished off the project. Musn't forget that Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis and others were doing their part in the late 50s too, but it took the Beatles -- and the rest of the British rockers -- to finish the job, and the American mental landscape was never the same after. They, and the new prevailing phamacolgy of the period, was the reason that the 60s that y'all are so tired of hearing about (understandably) happened.



    I could go on, but the world you malcontents live in today is, was, set in motion by that cultural revolution. Unfortunately, the WASP anti-bohemian instincts were also set in motion, Nixon was elected, and the whole new world of peace and love collapsed around 1969. And we're still living under the dark cloud of reaction to global cultural progress that started at that time. It's why we all are malcontents now. We know the white-breads still have the reins, and only a certain amount of bohemian bonhomie is allowed.



    So when the Beatles come to iTunes, it's like a huge generational switch has been thrown, a circuit has been closed, the culture of peace and love is now downloadable. Will it sell this time around? It's never wise to sell Apple short.



    One more thing, very relevant here. The Beatles were among the first to see the relatively new techniques of stereo recording as a thing to be played with, inside your head, the sounds skittering around in your brain joyfully. It was headphone-tripping, with guitars, sitars, snippets of tape, orchestras (George Martin!), etc. This translates very well to the present, when everybody is on headphones. Back then, almost nobody was, unless they were home alone stoned. It's why 'A Day in The Life' (Sgt. Pepper) is one of their most important statements.



    Finally, it's a great surprise to learn from that first concert video on the Apple website that they opened with Chuck Berry's 'Roll Over Beethoven.' Exactly. Bringing Americans their own Black R&B music back to them, like the Stones and everybody else was about to do. A new declaration of independence. Way to work the system, Apple!
  • Reply 93 of 117
    Use this Promocode: THC20

    that promocode gives 20%
  • Reply 94 of 117
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,596member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Beautiful quote, however the haters will argue that the sentiment only applied in the 60's.



    Actually, I think it's more relevant today than it ever was if you interpret "living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.." as a critique of those who accept the proclamations of bloggers and TV/radio pundits without examining the actual evidence and facts of the matter. It could also be interpreted as a critique of those who don't believe in global warming...or evolution...or just about anything, which is why it was such a brilliant lyric and far more intelligent than just about anything being written in recent years.
  • Reply 95 of 117
    dypdyp Posts: 33member
    Zzzzzzzz.....





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by appleinsider View Post


    apple reportedly beat out rivals google and amazon in securing the exclusive digital rights to the back catalog of the beatles on itunes through 2011.



    The new york post reported wednesdsay that google and amazon were also involved in negotiations to secure the rights to the digital catalog of the beatles in their own stores. But in the end, apple offered the band and its label, emi, the best deal for bringing the content to itunes.



    The deal was reportedly spearheaded by emi ceo roger faxon, who convinced the parent company of the beatles, apple corps ltd., to relent on its longstanding opposition to digital music sales. The three parties then engaged in "rapid" negotiations by the end of summer.



    The exclusive agreement, which was planned to be announced the week before the holiday shopping season begins, is an exclusive deal through 2011.



    "who else are they (the beatles) going to do a deal with?" one anonymous executive reportedly said. "apple dominates the digital market."



    beatles songs went on sale on itunes on tuesday, with the band's debut celebrated with a hyped announcement from apple. Prior to the launch, apple on monday teased an "exciting announcement" related to itunes would be revealed the following day.



    The songs were immediately strong sellers, with the itunes lp for "abbey road" at no. 7 on the itunes album charts as of wednesday morning. The self-titled white album came in at no. 8, while "sgt. Pepper's lonely hearts club band" was no. 10.



  • Reply 96 of 117
    dypdyp Posts: 33member
    Well said.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    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.



  • Reply 97 of 117
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Actually, I think it's more relevant today than it ever was if you interpret "living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.." as a critique of those who accept the proclamations of bloggers and TV/radio pundits without examining the actual evidence and facts of the matter. It could also be interpreted as a critique of those who don't believe in global warming...or evolution...or just about anything, which is why it was such a brilliant lyric and far more intelligent than just about anything being written in recent years.



    Totally. I miss John Lennon so much. Think what he could have contributed during the last 30 years. I just wonder if his insights would be reflexively rejected by many people, simply because

    they want to express their youthful contrariness to the ideas of their elders.
  • Reply 98 of 117
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,596member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    .

    One more thing, very relevant here. The Beatles were among the first to see the relatively new techniques of stereo recording as a thing to be played with, inside your head, the sounds skittering around in your brain joyfully. It was headphone-tripping, with guitars, sitars snippets of tape, orchestras (George Martin!), etc. This translates very well to the present, when everybody is on headphones.



    Sorry..I'm going to have to disagree with that one. The Beatles and George Martin had almost no interest in stereo up through and including Sgt. Pepper. The stereo mixes were done as an afterthought and they weren't given a lot of care. For years, I argued the opposite position, until I was finally convinced by engineer Geoff Emerick's book. Most Beatles collectors consider the mono mix of Pepper to be the definitive edition. Personally, I still prefer the stereo mix, but I can't deny the facts. (Same was true for Chess and Motown, by the way.)



    Part of this was because the Beatles and Martin misread the market. By the time Pepper was released, stereo was becoming a pretty big deal in the U.S. (the largest market for Beatles records) due to the growing interest in hi-fi and U.S. manufacturers like McIntosh, Fisher, Scott, AR, Harmon-Kardon, Dynacord, etc. as well as the 1966 FCC edict that stopped AM stations in large cities from simulcasting on FM and therefore opening up FM to stereo rock, the first of which was WOR-FM in New York. In the UK, there was no stereo broadcasting at that time, hi-fi was less of a big deal (in part, due to a poor economy), and the BBC had only recently opened up the airwaves to rock and therefore, stereo was not considered important, especially for rock. In addition, many U.S. studios were independent and open to experimentation wheras EMI was very "old school", where the engineers used to walk around in lab coats and there were strict procedures and methodologies for everything. Considering all that, it's amazing that the Beatles were able to experiment as much as they did.



    By the time of the White Album, stereo had become more important (although there are still collectors who prefer the mono mix of that as well). Only Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be were specifically recorded and originally mixed for stereo.
  • Reply 99 of 117
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Sorry..I'm going to have to disagree with that one. The Beatles and George Martin had almost no interest in stereo up through and including Sgt. Pepper. The stereo mixes were done as an afterthought and they weren't given a lot of care. For years, I argued the opposite position, until I was finally convinced by engineer Geoff Emerick's book. Most Beatles collectors consider the mono mix of Pepper to be the definitive edition. Personally, I still prefer the stereo mix, but I can't deny the facts. (Same was true for Chess and Motown, by the way.)



    Part of this was because the Beatles and Martin misread the market. By the time Pepper was released, stereo was becoming a pretty big deal in the U.S. (the largest market for Beatles records) due to the growing interest in hi-fi and U.S. manufacturers like McIntosh, Fisher, Scott, AR, Harmon-Kardon, Dynacord, etc. as well as the 1966 FCC edict that stopped AM stations in large cities from simulcasting on FM and therefore opening up FM to stereo rock, the first of which was WOR-FM in New York. In the UK, there was no stereo broadcasting at that time, hi-fi was less of a big deal (in part, due to a poor economy), and the BBC had only recently opened up the airwaves to rock and therefore, stereo was not considered important, especially for rock. In addition, many U.S. studios were independent and open to experimentation wheras EMI was very "old school", where the engineers used to walk around in lab coats and there were strict procedures and methodologies for everything. Considering all that, it's amazing that the Beatles were able to experiment as much as they did.



    By the time of the White Album, stereo had become more important (although there are still collectors who prefer the mono mix of that as well). Only Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be were specifically recorded and originally mixed for stereo.



    Thanks for the great correction. I was mis-compressing decades of later headphone tripping. I seem to remember the Stones playing with stereo on Beggar's Banquet, or was it Satanic Majesty's? Anyway, whoever did the stereo mix must have had some fun.



    Very much appreciated your other posts here, by the way.
  • Reply 100 of 117
    desarcdesarc Posts: 642member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    A thousand years from now, if humankind hasn't killed itself off, the works of J.S.Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven will still be performed daily around the world. Not so much the Beatles or the Rollings Stones, or any contemporary popular music.



    funny, it's the Beatles, not Brahms or Bach or LVB, that ends up in time capsules, and what song does SETI use to try and communicate with other galaxies?

    Across the Universe by the Beatles.
Sign In or Register to comment.