MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

What if the Beatles throw an on-line, digital download "coming out" party and no one shows up for it? By this point it seems that anyone who has wanted Beatles music, already has it. Are the kids these days clamoring for some "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" to bump and grind to?

"analysts say that such a move would be a 'nonevent' in terms of the company's profits,"

Because Apple is more popular than the Beatles

You nailed it MDN -

Sure, this would net almost no cash for apple directly, but it would be buckets and buckets of free advertising -

Or, for that matter - a great announcement for Steve to make on stage in June......

Anyone want to take bets on when this is announced?

I like that word, hampered. Smelly clothes.

I keep tellin ya, it's the Weables that are being released on iTunes in June. They're a polka band from Montana and a big hit with the "ya sure" crowd.

bdb,
Depends upon where that hand is.

I want to buy some AAPL shares pretty soon, any advice as to where i should start? I currently have no clue as to how to go about it.

Thanks in advance.

Beatles will make a splashy entry into the digital world - so expect a big event - a branded iPOd. the reason its has taken so long since the settlement is beacuse they were working on the branded iPod

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/younginvestors/06/firstbroker.asp

Jim - TIV: Weables or Weasels?
Polka is hot.

shares

Open an account with eTrade or another online broker and just buy the shares you want. If you don't have a lot of money to invest, consider Sharebuilder.com. You can invest weekly or monthy and buy partial shares.

Their full catalog. the Beatles iPod. $1000.

Anyone want to take bets on when this is announced?

As I said in the other thread, my guess is June 1st, the 40th anniversary of the release of Sgt. pepper. That's also a Friday, so if you make an announcement then, you get coverage in the Friday and Sunday newspapers, many of which will be running articles with the inevitable headline, "It Was 40 Years Ago Today." A deal with iTunes gives them a contemporary angle on a story about an album recorded way back when LBJ was in the white house.

" . . .when LBJ was in the white house."

And his ghost is still there yelling at people from the toilet.

I am a 52 year old Beatles fan. So I say this not out of disrespect. But the times they are a (have) changing. I already have my Beatles collection on my iPod. Only occasionally have moments of nostalgia and wanting to listen to the Beatles. My music loving kids could care less about the Beatles. I do not think it will be a big deal.

PR-

First, an exclusive 6-12 month Beatles brings a refreshed awareness of iTunes to consumers.

The move makes the average Joe who does not yet use iTunes, or uses some other music store to think "Yeah, you can't win by using something else. I might as well give up on Napster and go with iTunes. It's all going de-DRM anyways, so I need not worry about being locked in."

There are still 20% or so of consumers not onboard with iTunes that are using something else. The Beatles could prove as a tipping point for these folks. Count on Apple marketing and advertising this exclusivity of Beatles tracks extremely well.

Secondly, count on Beatles tracks selling extremely well, which will stun the "experts." The Beatles are a franchize similar to Lucas' Star Wars phenomenon. Many people own that trilogy in about as many different formats as people have fingers. VCR, wide-screen VCR, The Special Edition Star Wars, LaserDisk Star Wars, DVD Star Wars, and the list goes on.

Lastly, analysts have not figured in, nor have they given any thought to, a Beatles Special Edition iPod, which is certainly coming with pre-loaded Beatles music. This product will dramatically boost sales for a quarter or two of Apple's high-end iPod video product line (which is a highly profitable product).

I still they would get more mileage out of it if Steve announced it onstage on the 11th. When you are talking 40 years, there isn't much difference between the 1st and the 11th. They could still throw in the 40th anniversary stuff.

" I keep tellin ya, it's the Weables that are being released on iTunes in June. They're a polka band from Montana and a big hit with the "ya sure" crowd." —Jim-TIV

If you are suggesting that Beatles music can be equated with a stupid polka band, you should be more careful about letting everybody know what a moron you are.

In similar news, time capsuled analysis from Shaw Wu (sounds like a character from the Manchurian Candidate, right?) stating that "The release of a Bruce Springsteen set on CD should not have any effect on the newly emerging CD market" has been found, along with a detailed report concluding that, "While some might see the release of the Matrix on DVD as a matter of some interest, we do not expect any effect on DVD sales or DVD player sales as most people interested in seeing the film have already done so."

Polka! Did somebody say polka?

http://www.brave.com/bo/

And as much as I love The Beatles, I love hearing Joe Cocker belt out there tunes even more.

It may be a non-event profit-wise, but a period of Beatles exclusivity would add further prestige to Apple/iTunes which further enhances its position as the place for future new and exclusive content.

Apple.com home page, November 2001.

Nonevent for whom?

@Moo

Thanks for the tip about buying shares. I registered now and i will try to understand how it works. I will also google it up and see if i can any more tips.

Analysts' assessments of Beatles on iTunes a nonevent.

It may be a non-event profit-wise, but a period of Beatles exclusivity would add further prestige to Apple/iTunes which further enhances its position as the place for future new and exclusive content.

--

yeah, the 99% marketshare doesn't hurt either.

Please. Beatles fans already have all that music in CD form, and have ripped to iTunes long ago. Don't kid yourself.

Beatles on iTunes will be an event no matter what these anal-ists tell you.

Actually, while sales may be nothing to write home about, the marketing that could follow a Beatles announcement would be huge, especially if combined with a newly revised touch-screen Special Edition Beatles White iPod. Many, many people already own Beatles CDs, and thus won't buy anew from iTunes, but it may drive traffic to iTunes and increase sales of other artists.

The who?

Yellow Submarine iPod!

Quick - before the "Rock Era" of Elvis and The Beatles, who were the Top 10 biggest selling Music Stars ?

If you guess Sinatra, wrong, he barely makes the Top 20.

Bing Crosby is #1, followed by Paul Whiteman, Guy Lombardo, Tommy Dorsey, Billy Murray, Benny Goodman, Glenn MIller, Henry Burr, Peerless Quartet, and Harry MacDonough.

WHAT ? You say you've never heard of many of those ?

That's my point.

If The Beatles are going to sell anything, they better get busy. Their fans will be dying off before too many more years pass. And however 'Artistic' Sgt Pepper may be, it's appeal will ONLY be via 'Art' or Historical Value, and not Commercialism.

How long since YOU bought any Bing Crosby songs ?

Thank You
BC Kelly
Tallahassee Fla

"..It's not a needle mover,' agreed Shaw Wu,."

Well... it probably wont be compared to the Loma Prieta ..
but it IS significant !! ..

I mean, its taken what ... oh .. 7 years or so to drag Paulie (kickin & screamin ) into the 21st Century !

MW = "British" --- MDN ... How DO you do that ?

The reason you can tell for absolute certain that this would NOT be a non event is that PEOPLE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT.

If it was a non event, no one would be discussing it.

The endless amount of press even rumors and speculation about this event occurring prove without a shadow of a doubt that this is no "non event."

Whether Apple's revenues go up substantially as a direct result of Beatles catalog sales is irrelevant, the publicity and the cache of getting an exclusive Beatles gig is gold.

BC Kelly: "If The Beatles are going to sell anything, they better get busy. Their fans will be dying off before too many more years pass. And however 'Artistic' Sgt Pepper may be, it's appeal will ONLY be via 'Art' or Historical Value, and not Commercialism."

While you make an excellent point, you forget to notice that the Beatles still sell very well even today, they have a ton of new fans that weren't alive to be fans during their era. Also, note that the Beatles have had massively more influence on music since their passing than all the rest of the musicians you mentioned combined.

The Beatles singularly fashioned modern rock, like no other band has ever done.

They are far more relevant today than any other band in the past 50 or 100 years.

"Also, note that the Beatles have had massively more influence on music since their passing than all the rest of the musicians you mentioned combined.
The Beatles singularly fashioned modern rock, like no other band has ever done.
They are far more relevant today than any other band in the past 50 or 100 years."

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! I haven't laughed so hard in weeks!
How did they fashion modern rock? With the song 'we all live in a yellow submarine'? The beatles are just wannabe hippies, not real hippies. Have you ever heard of the band 'Cream'? go to the iTunes store and download the song 'Sunshine of your love' by the band 'cream', and also maybe download a rolling stones song, those two bands alone have set the standards for rock. All the people who were in the beatles are nasty and they could barely write songs, let alone sing them, and they all probably hate apple seeing as that lawsuit went on for so long. Only microsoft nerds listen to the beatles and think that it's 'cool'.

twilightmoon

I'd have to look up the sales data, so if you say the Beatles are still selling well today, I'll take you at your word. But since that could only be on regular CD - and according to the recent sales figures everyone is talking about - the Beatles must the ONLY ones who are selling at all?

Yes, can imagine they currently have a lot of younger fans; which would have to be true for them to be selling CD's now since all the old fans should already own their recordings.

And, the fact they DO have relevance and influence is undeniable. But to define and quantify those terms, and to defend your statements - "the Beatles have had massively more influence on music since their passing than all the rest of the musicians you mentioned combined. The Beatles singularly fashioned modern rock, like no other band has ever done. They are far more relevant today than any other band in the past 50 or 100 years" - is a task worthy of a full blown essay approaching a book length PhD.

Does MDN allow extended post?

I was merely trying to remind everyone that "Pop Music/Culture" is, by definition, what is currently popular - what is $elling. REMEMBER - Pop Culture is all about $$. If it ain't $elling, then bring out the next Contestant.

However, to talk about Art and History - them's a whole 'nother subject. Now we're back to that essay again.

Thank You
BC Kelly
Tallahassee Fla

Wow, Indigo iMac

Relax, I just took care of it, and think she'll understand.

But YOU, you may need 'special handling'

Wish I had the time at this particular moment, sorry. However, hang in there, am sure others will help you with your misconceptions and misunderstandings - especially that "only microsoft nerds listen to the beatles".

Otherwise, imagine Dr Phil should be available on Monday

Thank You
BC Kelly
Tallahassee Fla

Here are current facts on recent Beatles sales and ranking, for all those interested...or not. Whether you personally like the Beatles or not, facts don't lie.

1 is a compilation album by The Beatles, released on November 13, 2000. The album features every #1 British and American hit single by the band released from 1962 to 1970.

The reception of 1 surpassed all critic and commercial expectations. It sold 3.6 million units in its first week and more than 12 million in three weeks worldwide, reaching #1 in over 35 countries, including the US and the UK. It became the fastest-selling album of all time and the biggest-selling of 2000 and of the decade so far. In 2007, the United World Chart revealed officially that 1 is the 15th best-selling album of all-time worldwide.

mango

@Indigo iMac

Wow. How old are you? Like 12?

Why don't you check out this page at Wikipedia on the Beatles accomplishments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts

Then read about the fact that Eric Clapton, ya know the guitar player with Cream, hung out with the Beatles, played on "While my Guitar Gently Weeps", and almost joined the band when George quit. I'm sure if you polled the members of both Cream and the Stones, they would list the Beatles as bands that influenced them. Then grow up.

I particularly like this fact:

"During the week of April 4, 1964 The Beatles occupied the first five slots of the Billboard Hot 100, #1 - "Can't Buy Me Love," #2 - "Twist and Shout," #3 - "She Loves You," #4 - "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and #5 - "Please Please Me," the only group in rock and roll history to achieve this feat. That same week they also had another seven charting records in the Hot 100: "I Saw Her Standing There", 31; "From Me to You", 41; "Do You Want to Know a Secret?", 46; "All My Loving", 58; "You Can't Do That", 65; "Roll Over Beethoven", 68. The Beatles had twelve songs on the charts that week, a feat never matched before or since."

I can't vouch for this but I don't think it's necessarily false information. Note from 1991 through end of 2006 Beatles had 9th most popular album.
source:
http://allcharts.org/news/music/2006-US-Music-Purchases-Exceed-1-Billion-Sales-1/

(1991 - 12/31/2006)

1 Come on Over / 15,408,533
Shania Twain
------------------
2 Metallica / 14,819,905
Metallica
------------------
3 Jagged Little Pill 14,513,313
Alanis Morissette
------------------
4 Millennium / 12,091,491
Backstreet Boys
------------------
5 Bodyguard / 11,789,552
Soundtrack
------------------
6 Supernatural / 11,588,453
Santana
------------------
7 Human Clay / Creed 11,483,557
------------------
8 No Strings 11,099,051
Attached / N Sync

------------------
9 Beatles 1 / 10,821,222
Beatles

------------------
10. Falling Into You / 10,752,658
Celine Dion

hey, 'bc kelly', maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I mean by "only microsoft nerds listen to the beatles" is that (jokingly) microsoft nerds would buy the beatles music knowing that some of their money is going to a company that hates apple. Also what I meant by another sentence is that paul mc cartney isn't exacly a nice person. oh and "appleguy" record sales aren't exactly accomplishments, just popularity. Eric clapton played "my guitar gently weeps" after Cream disbanded, and also note that on Clapton's wikipedia page it says "Clapton's playing on Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" from the Beatles' White Album—according to some, a tactic intended to make the other Beatles take Harrison's song more seriously, but whatever the truth, by all accounts the presence of an outsider, especially of Clapton's calibre, had the effect of bringing harmony to the irritable band." Heh, note 'irritable band'. The beatles could not have influenced cream, as the beatles did not do psycadelic rock, and the only real way that the beatles influenced the the rolling stones was getting them a record deal and being behind the beatles in sales. If anything Clapton influenced the beatles according to that wikipedia page. Now you grow up, fool.
FTW.

Indigo iMac, it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's also clear that your command of popular music history is non-existent.

I can also deduce from your posts that you are under twenty years old. Sixteen would be my guess.

Therefore, I think you should just have a nice big cup of shut the fuck up.

Part of the "BIG DEAL" about The Beatles music being re-re-re-released digitally AND through the iTS, is that EMI & Apple Corps have been digitally remastering the entire Beatles catalogue.

My guess is that there will be some mega-event where The Beatles remastered catalogue and some special deal with Apple and iTunes is announced.

Twilight moon

Thanks for that info. If nothing else that info is a real statement about why the music industry sucks so bad.

"Let it be... let it be.... let it be, singing words of wisdom... let it be".

Actually I don't even own an iPod, but I look forward to iTunes bringing more & more to us all.

Sounds good except for the fact that the Sunday paper's Lifestyle or Music section is usually put to bed and printed the previous Wednesday or Thursday.

@Indigo iMac

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

Note the list of "followers". These are avowed Beatles fans.

Sod them.

SJ should impose a levy to claw bak the money Aspinall and his theiving friends demanded for using the name Apple. - Its not like they were tring to call them Beatle computers - its just a label name and, at the time of the original dispute, completely different from the music business.

Nice to see where the relative strength now lies after SJ took Apple Inc into pop !!!

MacNotables 727
25:00



I haven't heard anyones spout clueless music history like Indego Mac does. I lived that era you did not. The Beatles influenced both The Stones and Cream.

I guess Rolling Stone Magazine and the rest of the music world doesn't know as much as you, Indigo.

The Beatles began the whole change in sound. The Stones took it raunchier, Cream took it psychedelically heavier, The Who took it more theatrical, and Led Zepplin took it heavier. But they all took the seed from The Beatles and planted their own seed from the tree.

In fact Indigo, The Beatles gave The Stones their first hit:
http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-5597.html

And Clapton didn't even START in Cream until 1966. Meanwhile, a quote about the emerging psychedelic era about the Beatles August 1966 released "Revolver" Album:
QUOTE:
"The Beatles' unfolding innovation in the recording studio reaches its apex with the album's final track. Lennon's "Tomorrow Never Knows" was one of the first songs in the emerging genre of psychedelic music, and included such groundbreaking techniques as reverse guitar, processed vocals and looped tape effects."

Cream's first album (released months AFTER "Revolver"), "Fresh Cream" did not come out until December 9 1966.

HAHA MDN Magic word--"help" Lennon from the grave agrees! SPOOKY.

Sorry, I inadvertently clipped my MacNotables bookmark in my comment, which I'd been listening to when I read Indigo's ridiculous comment.