“Paul McCartney describes the effort to finally offer a digital Beatles catalog as ‘stalled.’ This is getting ridiculous. The Beatles will never become irrelevant, but this refusal to join the 21st century isn’t doing the legacy any favors. Already, there are kids today who call the Beatles overrated, saying they ‘don’t get’ the hype, etc. Music, and the way people listen to it, has changed, for better or worse, and the iPod generation is more interested in the hot new single than an LP work of art like The White Album,” Mike Bruno writes for Entertainment Weekly.
“There’s nothing the Beatles or Apple Corp. (the company established to manage their catalog) can do about that, but it would definitely help keep the band’s music alive and well if the young music fans who live on iTunes were at least given access to Beatles tracks, should they decide they want to hear for themselves what all the fuss is about,” Bruno writes.
“But perhaps even more important, this ‘stall’ is just bad business. Shunning a distribution model that is growing for one that is dying (CDs) makes no sense, not to mention the fact that anyone savvy enough to use bittorrent can get the entire catalog for free anyway,” Bruno writes.
Bruno writes, “Enough is enough. I love and respect the Beatles and hope that future generations are exposed to their brilliance so the legacy lives forever. Hopefully, Apple and the Beatles themselves will realize their wrong-headed resistance to change is putting that in jeopardy.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Patty D.” for the heads up.]
A good article with a bit of misinformed junk at the end (unless he meant “Apple Corps.,” The Beatles’ corporation): Apple has been trying to get The Beatles to join iTunes Store for years. This lunacy is entirely the fault of The Beatles side of the equation.
It’s really stupid. We can’t reach an agreement… The whole thing is unfortunate because we love The Beatles. – Apple CEO Steve Jobs, September 2003
The Beatles and those who manage the music rights fit this word to a tee….. persnickety. Hey if they don’t care, why should anyone else? Once your dead and gone, all that your life was is nothing more than a dash between the dates on a headstone.
“all that your life was is nothing more than a dash between the dates on a headstone.”
Nothing to do with the Beatles, but I like that phrase.
Really, when you’re dead, that’s all it is.
However, I do think the Beatles should be on iTunes and other download sites for anyone who does/did enjoy them.
There are a zillion groups that I couldn’t care less about that are on iTunes and the songs get downloaded every day. So, let the Beatles be on iTunes for those who enjoy them, and stop the stupid comments on whether they are relevant or not, or whether you liked them or not.
They were a group that changed the face of music at the time, whether you liked their music or not.
I’m a CCR fan, but a lot aren’t, and yet I think their sound, well JF’s sound really, is in a class by itself and no one else has been able to come anywhere near close.
That being said, many don’t like them any more than they like the Beatles.
The Beatles are a part of history as much or more than most bands that have come and gone. I think they should be on iTunes, whether it makes money for them or not.
Cheers!
Until The Beatles arrived it was American artists that dominated the charts. The Beatles broke the mould. That was good for music generally.
Fame contaminated their logic so we had the ridiculous Apple v Apple disputes.
Now they seem to have painted themselves into a corner I doubt they ever will agree to let Apple Inc sell their music. They lost the plot many years ago.
Think what Oprah would do.
There, I just left my obligatory comment on this matter. Don’t make me invoke Godwin’s law here folks.
Frankly it’s not about whether the beatles will sell on iTunes or not; it’s more about for posterity’s sake.
I.e; any music store worth it’s salt will have The Beatles on it. End of story. (as well as hendrix, and even more importantly the Zeppelin, certainly more influential than the beatles for the kind of music I listen to at any rate).
Started to type a lengthy response then realized the futility of posting on this Hack Site.
I’m an old Beatles fan… But all this holding back might have a quite bad effect for Beatles’ music: younger generations will just ignore what they ever did, if time passes away too much…
Lordy, lordy, lordy – I loathe the Beatles catalogue of music – long may it stay off iTunes.
A half a dozen decent songs. Way over rated in the history of Rock and Roll. Serves them right, greedy buggers — people who want The Beatles will just rip CD’s or they will download the music from any # of BT sites.
Oddly enough – my confirmation word is “truth.”
Truth .
As I understand it, the entire catalog is being remastered (beyond previous digital remaster releases), akin to what was technically achieved with the ‘Love’ CD, which was a quantum leap in most audio parameters. With this, I wouldn’t be so inclined to purchase any iTunes, Beatles offerings at this time, in any event. The new remastering may (or may not) have something to do with the ‘stall’.
Longtime Beatles associate, Neil Aspinall was quoted some time back, as follows …
“I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters,” Aspinall said. “It would be better to wait and try to do them simultaneously so that you then get the publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc.”
Or does something like Freako Jackson owning the rights on ALL beatle songs has something to do with it? And that since he became in a regrettal stage from ongoing illnesses vented that he would put these rights in his will as going back to Paul. If so, we have to wait this out. Paul missed his chance when he himself was being cheapish back when the rights were on the market and he let MJ get away with them.
For my part, iTunes is a pain. What cd (or vinyl) selling store let you listen to the first part of a song which is hardly ever a rightful token for the entire song?
No, Frank … Jackson having the (publishing) rights (now more owned by SONY, in truth), doesn’t give him any ‘control’ over releases. Further, even being limited to the publishing rights, Jackson (and moreover SONY) would only benefit from additional outlets for the music. And, at the moment, it seems that they both could use any additional cash afforded them …
Go ABBA!
the whotles?
Ignoring all the “the Beatles suck” comments. MDN – As for the “misinformed junk” at the article’s end: From the context, I believe it’s clear they are talking about Apple Corps. The negotiations are stalled between McCartney and the company he co-founded in 1968. (Which is about right for the long, litigious history of Apple Corps; it is only ironic that they are finally at the point where they are suing themselves, just as Eric Idle predicted.)
The Beatles were a revolution that was made possible because of the inspiration of Elvis Presley. So many great groups owe their existence due to Elvis. To hold back the Beatles songs from digital distribution is a mistake. Once folks hear the Beatles again, they’ll remember ho good they were and will buy more of their music.
If you think The Beatles are overrated, then it’s because you lack any knowledge of music history. Granted, I’m sure that the haters have a pretty myopic (look it up) vision of music and music history.
You can dislike, hate, or not give a shit about The Beatles all you want, but I guarantee you that somewhere down the line, whatever you are listening to now (if it’s in the pop/rock realm) was directly or indirectly inspired by The Beatles.
They are the Cambrian Explosion of rock and roll evolution.
…and that’s why they’re a big deal.
Interesting comments, particularly since I did a one-day business Road Trip with some “late 20s” coworkers, who had their 160GB iPod in their car … I was quite surprised (pleasantly) at their musical selection, as it was nearly exclusively old hits that I had grown up with.
I even jestingly gave him a hard time, saying “Where are all the hits from <u>your</U> generation? and his response was that this was the ‘good stuff’ that he had always listened to … no Brittany or Rap Junk to be found (thank Goodness).
Insofar as the Beatles specifically,
a) probably like many others, my iTunes tracks came from existing CDs for ‘free’. Perhaps whoever the “impediment” is will finally wake up to realize that the music is being discovered by a younger generation, but not through new music sales, but by buying a used CD, ripping it, then re-selling the used CD. Congratulations, a used music reseller just made $2 profit off of 15 tracks and didn’t have to share a dime with you.
b) The Monkeys were AFAIC, merely a fabricated (vs. self-made) band, like the Partridge Family and the Banana Splits … and like these others, they have some reasonably good pop songs.
c) The real issue here isn’t any particular band, but rather the US Copyright Law that gives the owners ridiculously long periods of monopoly power – – this is a classical example of monopolistic practices (legal in this case, because of Copyright Law) stifling innovation and Capitalism-based higher productivity leading to improved consumer value.
The classical example that I like to use to illustrate this last point is the music of Elvis, since he died back in 1977 <U>(yeah, back before some of you whipper-snappers were born!),</U> yet even his first breakthrough hit (Heartbreak Hotel; 1956) is currently protected until 2047 (Life+70), which means that despite the fact that Elvis died at the relatively young age of 42, most of his grandchildren will statistically die of old age before this “incentive for innovation” finally expires…and if you’re age 25 today, you’ll be retired before this happens.
If we were to back up the clock to the 1909 Copyright Law (28+28 year extension), as of 2009, works prior to 1952 would be already public domain, off of copyright…and Elvis would start to go public domain in another 4 years. This current iTunes mess with the Beatles would still be around, but only be able to last another 12 years (based on the Feb 1964 Ed Sullivan Show appearance) before, which means that some of us who were barely old enough to remember them won’t quite be dead yet from old age, but since we’ll be in retirement, our disposable income is lower and won’t be able to afford the full freight copyright-protected price anyway.
-hh
These Beatles post generate almost as much vitriol as the ‘Obama: the Mac User’ stories on this website.
@redc
you’ve absolutely hit the nail on the head. The ‘Beatles started it’ arguements that certain music enthusiasts constantly spew were amusing until I realised they weren’t intended as hyperbolic.
@’you’re all idiots’, ‘all you idiot trendsters’ (oh the irony!)….
you enjoy the beatles. good for you. keep your zealous preaching to yourselves. Beatles fans act like they have to ‘enlighten’ those who regard the Bealtes were just a band. Yes, they were influential, but what did they ‘start’?. As others have stated, rock music was already evolving before they formed and they owe alot to black music, which laid the foundations of what evolved into mainstream rock. Clapton, Page et al would agree.
Look to the likes of robert johnson, chuck berry and yes, elvis presley, for those that were rocking before the Bealtes ‘started’ anything. Then tell me that all music owes the Beatles (and only them) some kind of debt.
As for the Apple vs. Apple story, irrelevant for many reasons others have stated well enough…
Why does it matter if their absense will cause them to be forgotten etc??..they are just a band! its not the end of the world if their music, around 40 years old, fades into the past where it belongs…
Beatles will live on forever. You all know it, so stop waisting your time on these goofy posts. No one had ever come close to their talen and creativity in over 40 years.