“Despite signs that Apple Inc. may land a historic deal with The Beatles to make the band’s entire catalog of music available on its iTunes store, analysts say that such a move would be a ‘nonevent’ in terms of the company’s profits,” Ben Charny reports for MarketWatch.
Charny reportsRumors of such a deal have been circulating for years. Speculation grew to a feverish pitch Friday when ex-Beatle Paul McCartney told Billboard magazine that an agreement with iTunes is ‘virtually settled,” Charny reports. “Currently, none of the digital-music merchants has rights to sell Beatles tunes online.”
“Apple’s iTunes is by far the largest player in the sector, but the company was hampered by a long-running trademark dispute with the band’s music-publishing arm, which is named Apple Corps.,” Charny reports.
MacDailyNews Take: The company wasn’t “hampered” in the least. Perhaps a few of Apple’s lawyers were “hampered” by having to do the work, but the process did nothing to “hamper” Apple who built massive dominance of the legal online music and digital music device markets.
Charny continues, “The two sides reached a settlement in February, which many expected to pave the way for an eventual deal to sell Beatles songs.”
Still, this won’t do much to boost profits at Apple and other online sellers, analysts said during interviews Friday,” Charny reports. “At 99 cents a song, it is believed by most that Apple simply breaks even on song sales.”
“‘Having the Beatles on iTunes is fabulous, but it’s a nonevent,’ according to W.R. Hambrecht & Co. analyst Matthew Kather, who has a buy rating on Apple,” Charny reports. “‘It’s not a needle mover,’ agreed Shaw Wu, an analyst with American Technology Research, who also has a buy rating on Apple.”
Charny reports, “Still, the development is sure to be a boon for music aficionados and for Apple Corps, the company that manages the Beatles’ commercial interests, Wu said.”
There are other values besides pure profits that would make The Beatles on iTunes – especially an exclusive – much more than a “nonevent.” The value of the free PR alone would make it an “event” for Apple. Ditto for the mind share value, although Apple has that in heaps already, having even more couldn’t hurt.
Michael Gartenberg of Jupiter Research says getting the Beatles catalog online is more important to the online music sellers than to consumers, who can buy and rip a CD for the music. “There’s going to be some bragging rights associated with just the nature of having that catalog,” he told MarketWatch. Gartenberg says Apple is favored to win exclusive rights, “if for no other reason than iTunes and iPod are the dominant ecosystem that most players want to be a part of.”
Full audio interviewhere.
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 !
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
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.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
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
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
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.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool mad” style=”border:0;” />
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.