MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple should just buy Apple and have done with it.

MW: finally.. make your own pithy statement about that coincidence

iTunes Store, not music store...

Continue.

> Possibly a massive roadblock to The Beatles debut on Apple's iTunes Store now removed?

The timing seems to point to that conclusion. Either that, or he was instrumental in finalizing the agreement (with the "massive roadblock" elsewhere), and now he is leaving AFTER the deal was closed.

@macaholic -

It's not worth it....

Really, who cares? I'm not that big of a Beatles fan anyway. When is Led Zeppelin's music going to be on iTunes? Now that I would pay for. But the Beatles? Naaaah, no thanks.

What about me?????

(I always get screwed.)

Not as much as I did!

Who actually wants Beatles music that already doesn't own it on CD?
(sound of crickets)

It was an issue about a generation and a half ago.

'The Beatles on the way to Apple’s iTunes Store?'

Don't be ridiculous. Two of them are dead!

MW:finally

When the Beatles sign on with iTunes, count on there being an 8 GB iPod nano, and 30 GB iPod video available in a multi-color casing (black w/white) with a Beatles SE logo laser etched on the back.

Count on The Beatles music being an iTunes exclusive for six-months, 256-bit with no-DRM.

128 bit with DRM will NOT be an option. The Beatles will demand quality music, and 128 bit does not cut it for them.

The Beatles longevity in music pokes at a variety of niche markets regarding age, so these iPods should sell very, very well, and iTunes will again be installed on more and more PC's further saturating the market as THE digital content platform.

Pete, you got off easy.

doesnt MJ own the beatles catalog?

possibly complete and total speculation in the take?

cynic821

Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to most Lennon-McCartney songs. The recordings themselves are controlled by EMI/Apple Corps.

Mummy calls the shots. Aspinall hasn't made a decision since Paul Is Dead.

Speaking of His Nibs, Sir Paul got even with Mummy and Daddy by not appearing with me on stage. He doesn't care if the Beatles show up on iTunes or not.

Mr. Starkey, does, though. He needs more money to continue his drum lessons.

@ Pete Best & Stu Sutcliffe ...

You guys are showing your age !!

The fabulous four are fabulous no more in the eyes of the new generation

Good Bye and Good Riddance.

Nothing really definitive that he was the total blockade of the beatles not getting online. It certainly sounds like they need to move on into the 21st century though.

The entire Beatles' collection on an iPod? What a great Xmas gift for the person who has nearly everything!! Put me on the waiting list!!

@Wiseguy

Its not so wise to damn the heros of another generation. We are often blind to the values of the generation eiher side of us, and so it is left to succeeding generations to extract what is good.

Remember that Bach, Mozart and Handel were all out of fashion at one time.

The influence of the Beatles on our culture is carved in stone. If you cannot see it, you need to take a few steps back - or leave it to your grandchildren to explain to you why that is.

calpundit –

I believe Michael Jackson sold his rights to the Beatles' catalog to Sony a few years ago so he could pay his mortgage and staff.

Cpt. Oblivious,

Hence the use of the question mark in MDN's Take.

It's fine to be a contrarian sometimes, but when you insist upon being one at all times, regardless of the subject matter or facts, you turn into nothing more than an average asshole.

I know the replacement, Jeff Jones, having worked down the hall from him for quite a few years. He's a solid guy who focused Sony Legacy on very high quality releases.

This bodes well.

If I were an EVRAGE asshole, I'd be a blind follower of the group think that exists here. I'd like to think of myself as an ABOVE average asshole, thank you very much.

AVERAGE*

The possibility is that Aspinal didn't want to have any settlement with Apple and was given no choice but to agree to it by the remaining Beatles and survivors. And then a few months later resign without it making seem like he was pissed at collaborating with the "enemy".

It would have been smarter to "retire" than resign.

Still having the Beatles catalogue on line will add to the digital offerings, whether or not you agree that the Beatles music is relevant or even good anymore.

The influence of the Beatles on our culture is carved in stone. If you cannot see it, you need to take a few steps back - or leave it to your grandchildren to explain to you why that is.

Some people have trouble seeing farther than their own shoelaces. Bad-mouthing the Beatles instantly marks such people as morons but, unfortunately, they're too ignorant to realize it. I hear lots of young people expressing the opinion that nothing older than they are is relevant. It's hard to believe that a whole generation could be so short-sighted, but stranger things have happened... Look who's president!

@alansky

'tis true that the young often dismiss anything older than themselves. I seem to remember doing the same when I was young.

Perhaps the pursuit of novelty is part of the reason for the success of mankind?

Still, we always try to save the younger generation from making the same fools of themselves as we did. It never seems to work though...

Goodby, you snitch ASSWIPE!

The Beatles (Apple Corps) should just be thankful anyone still gives a damn about listening to their music, much less wanting to pay for it. How many "re-issues" of Beatles music has there already been, in various new media?
I would wager most Beatles fans already own the 40-year-old+ music on CD, so why buy it again on iTunes?

I think someone finally told Neil that the Beatles broke up.
Time to move on Neil.

BFD...The Beatles suck!!! and so does U2..Fucken U2 iPod...

Some time in the fourth quarter of this year touch screen IPODs will be available.

That is when Apple will release their Peter North IPOD edition.

Can't wait to get my hands on that!!!!

Wiseguy, et al.

A good song is a good song.
My 14 yr. old and his friends (who are not jaded), like the beatles, even early "Cavern-era" stuff, on it's own merit.
And Black Sabbath. Phish. Hendrix. White Stripes. Zepplin.

See?

A good song is a good song.

Selling Beatles songs on iTunes and a Beatles iPod won't be a bust, but it won't be the same magnitude of clout it would have been, if in the iPod's infancy, the first signature one had been a Beatle iPod and not a U2 version. Neil "cut off his nose to spite his face" on that one.

I could see why Neil held out when CD's broke into the market, but his holding out with digital has only hurt Beatles sales. CD was different, people were dying to replace their scratched, battered vinyl albums, and the generation with the strongest desire to do this was middle aged and prosperous, and also the fan base probably had it's widest age range--the top music style hadn't shifted so dramatically to the drastically different sound that's out there now.

However, Neil holding out on Digital was stupid. He waited too long in an industry that moves at warp speed. By now most people have already bought all Beatle CD's, and already transferred the CD's to iTunes on their own as I did. Yes a few older maniac fans such as myself would buy a Beatles iPod--just because. But the majority will not, and the kid fan base is into a different sound now, it's all Rap and synthetic music sung by fashion models. Glad I grew up when I did.

The fabulous four are fabulous no more in the eyes of the new generation ...

The words of a

TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL

And lets be clear here

WiseGuy you are the biggest fuckin TOOL on MDN Ever!!!

You Beatles hate'n bunch of FOOLS are TOOLS.

And just to nail my flag to the mast, for me the Beatles are great to listen to every now n then, when they crop up ... but I don't go gett'n me knickers in a knot over em, one way or t'other ... the Beatles were a big part of the music world some years ago relativistically and I suppose they are still v influential in todays music, and I am sure they will be an influence for a long time yet.

Anyone one who thinks that music is a one way experience i.e. what's been before shall never darken our doors again is a TOOL. (cue, lists of crap bands and jibs re Tool and the Doors ... Oh, no the Doors, yet another oldie Group, they must be shite. NOT.)

err... where was I ... ah yeah.

Just because everyone over twentysomethink has got, heard or seen something already don't mean that the future peeps aint gonna like it as well. it's not all about you, it's about subsequent people to hear, see, touch and experience.

(from Wiki, and I hate to quote Wiki, so do your own fact check'n)
The Beatles - The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, which certified them as the highest selling band of all time based on American sales of singles and albums. In the United Kingdom, the Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one. This commercial success was repeated in many other countries: their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion discs and tapes worldwide. In 2004, Rolling Stone Magazine ranked the Beatles #1 on their list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.

Some how this kind of pervasion sneaks into a lot of other stuff ... other musicians over the years, present or yet to be heard might not declare influences by the "Fab Four" but most will be influenced by someone. so slagg'n off stuff from "yesteryear" is a game for TOOLS.

As for Apple doing a good biz out of any Beatles stuff on iTunes, great, they will also, be it as an aside, foster and nurture entertainment for future gens. like any of the other old stuff on iTunes.

WiseGuy you are a total TOOL, as always.

@SydneyStephen

You piss me off.

- coz, you write more elegantly than I do.

Astute words those ...

..."Its not so wise to damn the heros of another generation. We are often blind to the values of the generation either side of us, and so it is left to succeeding generations to extract what is good."

... and Yesterday is still one of the best songs ever written.

MW=english

Jolly good then...

I thought Eddie Murphy was the 5th Beatles member...

I get sick of this "5th Beatle" crap.

If there was anyone who contributed to the sound that made them famous it was absolutely only George Martin. Other than the Beatles themselves George had the most influence of what was recorded, how it was recorded, instruments used (he often played them), etc. George's influence was magnified in the later symphony orchestra heavy years of their music.

When Billy Prestion is mentioned it shows the ignorance of the author. He played on a few songs on an album at the dying phase of the Beatles career together. Hardly 5th Beatle material.

Neil controled the Beatles financial affairs and more after Brian Epstine died. Was he influential, yes, did he contribute enough that without him they wouldn't have been famous? No. Not 5th Beatle material.

Brian Epstein managed them, affected their early look, but had no real influence over their sound that made them famous. In fact his song choices were rejected very early in the groups history. I think they told him something like he should stick to managing and they'd handle the music. Influencial, yes, they probably would not have been famous without Brian's management, but if they didn't have the "sound," they wouldn't have been famous no matter who was managing or what they looked like.