digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Finally The Beatles are coming to itunes!!

gizmodo.com — Paul McCartney has signed a $400 million deal, which will see the Beatles catalog make its way to iTunes.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • csw3190, on 03/10/2008, -4/+50Well, we know what this Tuesday's news/release will be...
    • mparker7410, on 03/10/2008, -10/+4Yeah, Penryn based iMac and Mini.
    • Nitesmoke, on 03/10/2008, -2/+81Finally, Apple Records on Apple music. But seriously, this is great and all, but does anyone who actually wants Beatles songs really not already have them?
      • drcreek, on 03/10/2008, -13/+15Yes but not in a delicious DRM'd heavily compressed format! The Beatles have been in my iTunes without DRM and in a lossless format for quite some time.
        • kotatsu, on 03/10/2008, -4/+13If they're on iTunes+ they won't have DRM.
          • CoolWind, on 03/10/2008, -4/+9here on Digg paranoid delusions trump the truth
          • jabberwolf, on 03/10/2008, -8/+4Hmmmm too bad Appletards dont realize truth. Almost all iTune downloads DO HAVE DRM ! They just never tried to move them from their ipod or share them.
          • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -2/+3Please do not play The Fool on The Hill in Strawberry Fields Forever.

            Almost 90% of music that gets placed on iTunes (including the Beatles) will be chocked full of DRM. Paul... *ahem* Sir McCartney and Yoko Ono will assure of that. This is a massive move, and could generate some serious revenue for the remaining Beatles and the estates for the other deceased Beatles.

            ** looks through periscope ** Krikey Here comes the Blue RIAA Meanies!!!
          • NinjaJoey, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Call me when you can easily move that music from computer to computer, ipod to ipod, etc. Nevermind, don't call me. I don't pay for music anyway.
        • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -2/+2Wow, you must be so f**k*ng lucky.
          • mcosmi, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4I think it's great that Paul is gonna wait on getting paid the 600 mil until after he divorces that gold digging ***** wife of his. She shouldnt get a cent, and they should force her to hobble around without that fake leg of hers...better yet, beat her to death with it. Gold diggers make me sick.
          • artofwar420, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Oh and you forgot to say ***** YOKO.
        • artofwar420, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah I already have all the beatles songs, so this is great, just not for me. I guess a whole lot of new, probably young people will get access to the Beatles music, and that is a great thing.

          ***** YOKO!
      • Angostura, on 03/10/2008, -3/+9Well, I *do* have beatles songs, but most are on vinyl, or some on cassette. I never bothered getting the on CD. I suspect there are a few others out there two. Also there are a few songs that I like that are on otherwise execrable albums... so there might be a few sales.
        • mlfoley, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Execrable Beatles albums? Those cannot logically exist, sorry.
        • gwyrth, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Two words: Yellow Submarine. Come on. The flip side sucks.

          I had it on LP, but never bothered to get it on CD...
          • DephexTwin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Well sure, if you flip the CD then the player is just going to give you an error.... so what?
          • Nitesmoke, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Thats because you were listening to it as a single instead of an album, where it fits perfectly. Sgt Pepper's is a great piece of work.
        • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2Ionly ever listen to the Beatles on 8 track cartridge. Thats how i "keep it real". You kids and your vinyl.
          • kurttrail, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9vinyl is older then 8 track.
          • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1Vinyl was out way before the 8Track... Thomas Edison was one of the first scientists to record onto a vinyl cylinder (he recorded Marry Had A Little Lamb). I am fortunate to have
            one of the first batch of cylinders AND the player it plays on in the family....
          • Spuy767, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5@ astrotrain I doubt it, as Edison recorded on wax cylinders. Until about the turn of the century when he opted for a stronger material.
      • TheWorm, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4I already have them all, but what makes me happy is that while kids may not go to a record store and find the vinyl copies of the Beatles, they can experience the Beatles in the format that they've grown up with.

        I wonder what the top Beatles song on iTunes will be? They certainly were no one hit wonder.
        • gnslngr1919, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7I'm gonna say Hey Jude. Everybody likes Hey Jude.
          • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Hey Jude.... your really screwed... when you purchase DRM muuuuisc.... you'll never own the real song, just rent-it-rent it-rent it.

            That should be used for iTunes commercials when the announce it..
      • jjustice, on 03/10/2008, -2/+4You know, new people get born and then start liking music all the time. I'm 25 and have never bought Beatles music, and was actually waiting for them to come out on iTunes to buy some. And in case some of you have not been reading the news for the past year, iTunes DRM-free music is the same price. And if you think you can hear the difference on lossless or on vinyl, I recommend reading this article and taking a good hard look in the mirror: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-can ...
        • Slovenian6474, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3That article has to do with cables. That's not quite parallel to the difference in vinyl, lossless, and compressed.
        • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1iTunes is not 100% DRM free... Its maybe...10%... the 10% is for those Karaoke songs or the Holy Choir sings Black Sabbath's Greatest Hits... Thats iTunes or RIAA are worried about folks swapping on-line. Do yourself a favor, go out and purchase the actual CDs and rip them, you'll get better quality and you won't have to tell Apple, iTunes, or the RIAA where your going to be plaving them and what device your going to be playing them on.
      • mywhitenoise, on 03/10/2008, -2/+3They'll probably remaster them.
    • CoolWind, on 03/10/2008, -0/+37I guess the divorce left Paul a little tight for cash.
      • sizzzzlerz, on 03/10/2008, -0/+11Yeah, he's probably down to his last 20 billion or so. Poor guy.
      • haterrade, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1It really is true though...if anyone has noticed there has been a ton of Beatles songs on commercials (Target - Hello Goodbye), plus the Cirque Du Soleil show "Love". Since alot of his wealth is tied into the rights to these songs and not exactly in real cash it makes sense. I mean, everyone in the comments keeps saying "Doesn't everyone who likes The Beatles already have the songs?", those royalties aren't forever. He's definitely not as ridiculously up the ass wealthy as he once was and is probably down to 5 houses from his former 25
        • Nitesmoke, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1All I was saying is, most Beatles fans already have their music. I don't know a single person who would not DL a song from Frostwire or similar, waiting for iTunes to get them. Yes you can get viruses from those, but after a few years I never have, then again, I don't DL 243kb songs. The Beatles are probably the most influential band ever, they still sell records. There may be a few people that have never heard them that now will give them a chance, but they could just as easily get the songs elsewhere, cheaper with less restrictions.
      • lukemandese, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1The divorce from Michael Jackson?
    • jabberwolf, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2Sorry never had a problem getting Beattles tunes and will be ***** if I use iTunes and get it with Apple's DRM !
      I wonder if Paul had to sell for his hoppingly greedy ex wife!? Because we all know how much she deserves half a billion.... not!
      • mhender, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6What?
      • mcosmi, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3First off, you will prolly be able to get the drm-free...second, the divorce will be finalized before Paul gets his 600mil from apple. That one legged, gold digging ***** wont see a cent from this deision, but she's still gonna get 30 mil....30 mil that she worked so hard for. Nasty bitch.
        • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Is Pink Floyd DRM free on ITunes?.... How about Led Zeppelin? didn't think so, they are older bands, but they still generate a TON of cash to the original members and the estates of the departed. So this tells me right off the bat The Beatles will NOT be DRM free as everyone is thinking.
      • jabberwolf, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1What planet are you on? What large groups like astrotrain mentioned are DRM free? Only some no name small bands are DRM free.

        And I think we agree shes a nasty 1 legged hopping gold digger. But UK courts make divorce settlements private so who knows. My wishes go out to Paul.
    • dn11, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14yellow submarine themed ipod?
      • redwallhp, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6A themed 16GB iPod Touch preloaded with all the Beatles stuff. That's what they need to do.
        • bbqsalad, on 03/10/2008, -5/+3Sell it for 3984934893849834893849839489384983948938493849839483948938439 hundred dollars.
          • artofwar420, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4So by the time it comes out it's going to be about 90 Euros?
          • Laxaloot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4*****... i accidentally dugg you up :(
          • artofwar420, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1You are honest... thumbs up.
      • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Tell Apple where you go.... over your aunt Edna's... or Uncle Joes.... sky of blue.... sea of green... in our DRM filled Sumarine.
    • Ataxia2008, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Seriously, you should at at east 3-4 Beatles albums on CD or vinyl in your record collection. Don't fall for this Apple crap.
      • afidler, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8"...at at east 3-4"
        is that some kind of imperial AT-AT command?
      • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1What no "All Together Now" joke for this one... something like:
        ....1...2...3...4.... Can you purchase more.
    • fuze44, on 03/10/2008, -10/+1Ugh. The Beatles have not aged well. I can count on one hand the good Beatles songs.
      • artofwar420, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Oh no you didn't.
      • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5The Beatles music can't even begin to age until modern artists actually stop borrowing everything from them.

        It will never happen. The Beatles are as eternal as Beethoven.
        • fuze44, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Have you ever heard people criticize great inventors by saying they were just a product of their time? That if they hadn't invented it, someone else would have since it was "in the air?" That's how I think of the Beatles -- this "yeah yeah yeah" style that seems so blatantly obvious in retrospect.
    • mchugh22, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1who actually buys music anymore?
  • blakeley, on 03/10/2008, -10/+61Is this what's going to help Michael Jackson save Neverland Ranch?
    • overtoke, on 03/10/2008, -36/+1***** Michael Jackson, and ***** Paul McCartney
      • Nitesmoke, on 03/10/2008, -6/+30***** Michael Jackson would have been sufficient.
      • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -4/+15***** overtoke...see how that works?
      • KSUdesigner, on 03/10/2008, -3/+10In Soviet..wait...In America, Michael Jackson ***** you.
      • internetcoward, on 03/10/2008, -5/+2No, Paul is pretty lame, especially now. If he said ***** john lennon, maybe, but Paul is pretty much the gayest beatle.
        • Ataxia2008, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5What about a Ladybug, that's a pretty gay Beetle if you ask me...which you didn't.
      • astrotrain, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1What happened to the Ebony and Ivory love Jackson and McCartney shared.... they were side by side on their pianos...
    • TheeGeek, on 03/10/2008, -5/+7Go ahead and do that... i hear Jackson LOVES little boys....you'll be a treat
    • potterboy, on 03/10/2008, -4/+5Paul McCartney is a great performer, Michael Jackson WAS a great performer. Give some respect.
    • theysayjump, on 03/10/2008, -2/+9I'm pretty sure Jackson sold his Beatles cataolgue a couple of years ago.
      • crashcarstar, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4You are correct good sir.
        • Musicmonkey34, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3dugg for use of "good sir"
        • Auryn, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1you crashcarstar are WRONG good sir. michael jackson 'merged' that catalog with sony to sony/atv music publishing!
      • Detroit5Star, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Michael Jackson still owns 25% of Sony/ATV Music Publishing which includes some of the Beatles catalog. He previously owned a 50% stake in the company, but was forced to use it as collateral in a loan.
    • xqpnoted, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0Listen, I don't care who owns it, can we please rise as one and slay everyone involved in those Hello, Goodbye ads for Target?
  • osxtreme, on 03/10/2008, -1/+15Finally...
    • Ajnabee4U, on 03/10/2008, -7/+3Is there a difference in Itunes and Mytunes? I already have all the Beatles Records on my Ipod.
    • henderson, on 03/10/2008, -2/+8...everybody can shut up about it.
    • DarkSamus, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5cool stuff!

      care: 0
      don't give a flying *****: 1
    • dn11, on 03/10/2008, -2/+2wait, does this mean it's exclusive to iTunes? what about Amazon etc? Mostly I'm just curious to hear how much better these newly remastered versions sound - and will the remastered versions be available on CD? I wouldn't use iTunes if they paid me 99 cents per track.
    • Ataxia2008, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Finally Paul can afford a Macbook Air!!!
  • BlueStarr, on 03/10/2008, -96/+11I'm ***** sick of gizmodo. Riding the apple dick to get hits.

    And ***** the beatles...out dated and irrelevant.
    • Nitesmoke, on 03/10/2008, -6/+36Irrelevant, funny, because every band I hear on the radio keeps ripping off their style, and ask any good musician who their greatest influence and 9/10 times they say The Beatles
      • ricksite, on 03/10/2008, -3/+9All music, even the Beatles, evolved from something else. To quote Mitch Hedberg, "...if i made potato chips, and i decided to pack them in a skinny can, people would say i was like pringle's, but what if i packed them in a bag?"
    • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -2/+8Won't argue with that. The Beatles influence on music from the 60s on can not be measured. From out right rip offs like Badfinger and to a lesser extent Klaatu, to well done homages like ELO, the Bee Gees (ugh), and so on.
    • Lutremi, on 03/10/2008, -11/+3Irrelevant? I bet you listen to emo/metal/country.
      • EvilCan, on 03/10/2008, -1/+16Did you just list all the genres of music you don't like there?
      • saxreturns, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3That's almost as stupid a comment as Blue's. I listen to a lot of metal but that doesn't mean I have a closed mind about music, although I'm not a massive Beatles fan I appreciate their work. I've also heard several metal bands cover their songs.
      • supermajic, on 03/10/2008, -2/+3Well I think I can listen to just about everything bar those three genres... so I have to Digg you up.
      • DarkSamus, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1emo shouldn't be listed anywhere near metal, noob
    • Sherman901, on 03/10/2008, -3/+22haha... you're a tool. beatles are always going to be relevant.
    • jads, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7BlueStarr?

      Ringo Starr?

      Just sayin...
      • bigbadgoat, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Where I come from, Blue Star is a beer.
        • Jeffler, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Where I come from, spelling Starr with 2 r's refers to Ringo.
    • topace3000, on 03/10/2008, -4/+4What the *****, troll???
    • kidxmicah, on 03/10/2008, -13/+4Hi-five. Excellent comment. OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEEEEP. LOLZ
    • theuber1337, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9Music is an art. Music can not become outdated, nor irrelevant. All Beatles music is about love, unless love somehow disappears from humanity, the Beatles will remain timeless.
      • petebot, on 03/10/2008, -7/+1It’s sentiments like this that makes me hate Beatles fans.
        • sailadayaway, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4What? that doesn't even make sense, he's not trying to tell you why you should like the Beatles, all he's saying is they're timeless, which I'd love to see you argue with, since ALL music is timeless. All Beatles music isn't necessarily about love, but still... I don't care if you hate the Beatles, just don't hate me just because I happen to like them...
        • alz0rz, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5lol, you're stupid.
  • reyemnoraa, on 03/10/2008, -16/+9thats cool i guess, but does paul mccartney really need any more money?
    • Hermiod, on 03/10/2008, -2/+79Any man getting a divorce needs more money.
    • willynilly, on 03/10/2008, -6/+6Why don't you save some of it and buy some schooling. Then you can use apostrophes and capitals.
      • Grimdotdotdot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+21After that he could teach you about question marks.
      • fredmv, on 03/10/2008, -5/+3No *****. It's _really_ ***** annoying how people type in all lowercase and ignore any kind of punctuation as if they somehow think it makes them look more "artsy" or intellectual online. Quite to the contrary...
        • delude101, on 03/10/2008, -4/+5God i hate douchebags who end their sentences with...., lol.
        • r3zonance, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4What's even more annoying is people who point out every little mistake in something that somebody else has done, just to make themselves feel better about their own life.
        • Grimdotdotdot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2That somebody else has *made*

          ;-)
    • GramarNatzi, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Yea otherwise he'll have to settle for the Gulfstream 3, which doesn't even have a remote control for it's surround sound DVD system.
      • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1They really understate how inferior the Gulfstream 3 is. It simply isn't powerful enough to haul even ONE golden statue.
  • MikeonTV, on 03/10/2008, -8/+37Congrats to Heather Mills
    • Hermiod, on 03/10/2008, -0/+12If she tries to suggest that she had anything to do with the success of The Beatles or the money they made I strongly suspect most of the world's music lovers will be polishing their murder weapon of choice.
      • Myonosken, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Shes probably already tried it.
        • Hermiod, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2That probably explains why most people in Britain already want to kill her.
        • Skooma714, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1It's their version of Britney Spam.
    • dougalzene, on 03/10/2008, -2/+6can you get a leg transplant for £50mil?
      • orlyfactor, on 03/10/2008, -0/+13I think she needs a heart first.
    • theotheragentm, on 03/10/2008, -0/+10I hope she doesn't get any of this money. If she tries to go after it in court, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. *crickets*
      • ManInTheBunker, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Thank you, two-years-ago-Leno.
    • solid12345, on 03/10/2008, -5/+1To hell with Paul McCartney. He deserves to lose a chunk of his fortune for being stupid and marrying a girl 26 years his senior without a pre-nup. And it is not like she is asking for 50/50 of his money.
      • ConceptJunkie, on 03/10/2008, -0/+126 years his senior? So she's like 90?! Wow.
  • daFilms, on 03/10/2008, -25/+15Come on... this story was already submitted 6 hours before this one! And, it even links directly to the source gizmodo uses, UPI.

    Digg the Original:
    http://digg.com/apple/CONFIRMED_Beatles_Music_on_i ...
    • siphre, on 03/10/2008, -5/+17CONFIRMED: I dugg your article down
      • neiltc13, on 03/10/2008, -8/+2Confirmed: I dugg you down and I buried THIS article. We need better duplicate management on digg. This is not on, Gawker media continually spam this site, use spoof accounts and their own accounts to get stuff to reach the homepage and generally game the system to get traffic.
    • Eldoo77, on 03/10/2008, -2/+6Put away your wand Dupe Fairy!
    • Edan25, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Don't you know how digg works?
  • mparker7410, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10The most exciting thing about this is...
    Completely remastered Beatles catalog MUST have already be completed or is in the works! I can't imagine after all this time and after what is sure to be a HUGE rollout EMI, The Beatles and Apple being happy with throwing the old 1988 CD masters up ...especially considering Jobs admiration of the music of the Beatles.
    • diggAddict, on 03/10/2008, -10/+10Yeah a HUGE rollout of compressed horrible 128 bit nasty compression - what a disaster - this is not something to rejoice - it would be good if they resisted all forms of lossy compression and went for lossless downloads only or at least high bit rate lossy compression with NO DRM from Amazon!
      • Angostura, on 03/10/2008, -3/+10Well, you never know. They might be released as iTunes plus tracks - 256 kbps AAC DRM free.

        I pretty much challenge anyone to tell the difference between 256 AAC and CD.
    • hokie47, on 03/10/2008, -3/+4 I know 1988 is 20 years ago now, but I bet the sound quality of that CD is just as good as most things today.
      • mparker7410, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Listen to Eleanor Rigby on Revolver and then listen to it on "1." The difference is VERY noticeable.
      • postalblowfish7, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1CDs from the late 80s are waaaay too quiet, and lack a complete level of "ballsiness". just compare the original Traveling Wilburys release with the remaster. The original is almost unlistenable.
      • roebeet, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2As a Beatles fan, I am hoping that albums like "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" finally get their remastering due. Those are 4 track recordings and they should be able to re-mix them so that the vocals are centered (some fan remixes already exist). But I'm also hoping that the engineers don't get the "loudness" bug, with these.
      • 68024, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Try listening to the 1980s cd of the White Album. It's full of hiss that can easily be fixed by remastering.
    • skamp, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1The whole catalog has been remastered indeed, I read an article in the New York Times about that a while ago... They were supposed to release the remasters in 2007, I've been waiting for that announcement.
    • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -7/+2Perhaps they can do a decent stereo mix where you dont get drums in one ear and guitar in the other. The original is really iPod friendly.
      • abyss478, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5what? the panning of certain instruments is how the song was meant to be heard... little things like that are the reason the beatles rape every other band
        • Jeffler, on 03/10/2008, -8/+3Yeah, but when you want to listen to it on one earbud, you kind of miss out on half the song.
          • SpectralSounds, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4I'm sure when the Beatles decided to explore stereo effects by mastering their tracks the way they did, they didnt know it would annoy you when you only wear one earbud. They apologize.

            Listen to songs like, "Flying" and tell me it would be as cool as it is as a mono mix. Screw that *****.
          • jonohull, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Music that good deserves to be listened to on something better than one earbud. Get a real pair of headphones.
        • mparker7410, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2The ideal would be stereo and mono releases on the same release. Like the Beach Boys Pet Sounds.
        • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1xxx
        • roebeet, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Actually, the mono mixes were the way Beatles tunes were supposed to be heard, up until at least Sgt. Peppers. I agree with mparker7410 - they should release stereo and mono remastered versions, at least for the earlier albums.

          And just switching the stereo output to mono is not an alternative - anyone who's heard the current Capitol mono/stereo mixes for LP's like "Revolver" know that the mixes are not the same.
    • jacksplatter, on 03/10/2008, -4/+0cant we ever just let them go away and take their boring music with them? god move on already please
  • l0k0, on 03/10/2008, -7/+4Hopefully this will be the end of those silly lawsuits between the two parties as well. Apple was sued for having the same name, a synthesizer chip in the Apple II, iTunes, the iPod, etc. etc.
    • Hermiod, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8That business was dealt with last year. Apple (the music company) and Apple (the computer company) settled and the whole thing is over. That's what has made this possible.
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 03/10/2008, -4/+38The lawsuit over the name wasn't exactly silly. The Beatles politely said to Apple "Excuse me, but we use the name Apple for our record company."
      Apple said "Can we share?", and the Beatles said "Cool man, as long as you don't do anything to do with music."
      Apple launch iTunes, and the Beatles are understandably upset.
      • supermajic, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1I think he's talking about the one back in the 70s, which was a bit silly really - you forget that Apple Computers had to hand over $80000 to Apple Corps.
      • kashem, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1It was more specific, like becoming a music label.
      • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Before their agreemeent last year, Apple Computer twice made a significant payment to Apple Records; once when they (Apple Computers) were sued over their name. That agreement covered the name as long as AC didn't introduce sound manipulation into their computers. That lasted until Apple released System 7 which had huge (for the time) improvements in sound management. Apple yet again made a big payment to make them go away and led to the name of a classic system sound which still exists to this day (sosumi, if you don't get it, read it back slowly).
  • Greatn3ss, on 03/10/2008, -28/+146Guys,
    Act Naturally, now that the itunes Taxman has realized his schemes were For No One, we've all got Tickets To Ride. Now I don't have to Drive My Car down Penny Lane to the store if I needed Beatles tunes In My Life. I mean, Back In The U.S.S.R, they don't have this luxury. So why don't we all get some Wild Honey Pie and Savoy Truffles (I know I Will), and we can Cry, Baby, Cry (with Happiness [Is A Warm Gun]) until Revolution 9 comes around.

    ...

    Why Don't We Do It in the Road?
    • SurrealDream, on 03/10/2008, -4/+38Hey greatn3ss!
      It's been a long and winding road, been working like a dog eight days a week (don't worry, I feel fine), so I haven't found the time to speak to you in years. Still, when you get back, maybe we can work it out. Who knows, it may seem as though the last time we spoke was merely yesterday!
      By the way, are you still trying to be a paperback writer?
      ...I'm running out of ideas, maybe I should just let it be...

      All that's left to say is hello, goodbye!
    • xtraa, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5Are you guys from Pepperland?
    • mojoel, on 03/10/2008, -3/+13Someone's been hanging out with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
    • letitbleed62, on 03/10/2008, -3/+11Number 9... Number 9
      • mastahack, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6turn me on dead man....turn me on dead man
    • Soyea, on 03/10/2008, -8/+1Why can't we just do it in the road, let it be, please please,it's all yesterday.
    • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 03/10/2008, -5/+13all the nerdy people, where do they all come from?
    • rholloway, on 03/10/2008, -5/+2I'd love to dig a hole, shove this thread it in, then set about fixing a hole.
      • Musicmonkey34, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1soooo conflicted, do i digg up or down...head..going...to...explode....
    • suzywang3000, on 03/10/2008, -6/+0do the macarena
    • DephexTwin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9Just kill me now.
    • Ataxia2008, on 03/10/2008, -3/+3Err....

      HAMMER TIME!!!
    • bbqsalad, on 03/10/2008, -5/+1who let the dogs in.
    • usingpond, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Kill yourself.
  • peterjmag, on 03/10/2008, -34/+126Great! Now I can finally listen to The Beatles in a licensed, low bitrate lossy format with DRM restrictions on where I can listen to it! And it even plays on a whole one brand of MP3 player!

    No thanks. I think I'll stick to vinyl and CDs.
    • diggAddict, on 03/10/2008, -10/+4I agree!
      Its got to be 320 bit as a minimum for lossy compression or lossless compression - say NO to Apple's DRM!
    • SuperSunny, on 03/10/2008, -3/+53You forgot the part where Apple actually lets you download the 256 kbps Non-DRM file for the same price on many songs. If this isn't applied to the Beatles, something would be terribly wrong.
    • kotatsu, on 03/10/2008, -1/+22Well these recordings are EMI which means iTunes+ doesn't it? So no DRM and 256kbit encoding. It's not perfect but it's good enough for most.
      • leamanc, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Agreed. They will be DRM-free by virtue of EMI, and 256K encoding is plenty for recordings that are 40-plus years old with cheap pseudo-stereo effects (don't you just love the vocals on the left and the music in the right?)
        • postalblowfish7, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3analogue is warmer.
        • madmage, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Agreed, but wherever you get The Beatles from, it'll be off analog tapes, so that's your analogue right there, I don't need it redone trough vinyl to get the sound from the 1960s.
      • peterjmag, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8Ah, I stand corrected.
        • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5Digg is full of arrogant retards. When someone makes a mistake and admits it I have much more respect for them than the average assclown, which in this case goes by the name of SuspicionVandit.
  • willynilly, on 03/10/2008, -10/+131Excellent, and they'll all be "remastered." You know what that means? Dynamically compressed to make them "LOUDER". The same process that's being used to destroy our entire musical history, one album at a time. You are going to listen to these songs and wonder why you're just not into them the way you used to be. It won't be because they're outdated or irrelevant, or because you are. It'll be because they're too damned fatiguing to listen to anymore.
    There is no stopping the depressing destruction of our music, just another loss we can attribute to abject stupidity.
    • SuperSunny, on 03/10/2008, -3/+10Complain all you want. It's probably not going to be dynamically compressed to make them louder. I think they'd be smart enough not to go that far and ruin good music. It's $400 million.
    • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -2/+7OR maybe some people who don't already have the entire collection on CD will grab a few songs they didn't have or know about. You know, just to listen to without the benefit (of Mr. Kite? No too easy) of thousands of dollars to gear to be able to tell the difference.
      If they enjoy the music, what difference does it make?
    • ja9ae, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8It makes me very mad indeed all this "remastering" that goes on. I've got a copy of Led Zep's Houses of the Holy knocking around somewhere on CD and they've compressed it into nothingness, you can barely make out "The Ocean" - All the energy & feel of the song is totally lost. You don't need high end equipment to notice the loss of definition, I've got an off the shelf £250 system.
    • staeiou, on 03/10/2008, -3/+14No one is forcing you to buy the remastered copies and burn your old LPs. It is like toll roads, Reality TV, modern art, and meat/animal products: if you don't like them, don't buy them, but please don't evangelize to me about your oh-so-purist/cultured sensibilities. Realize that what you're expressing is not only an opinion, but an artistic/aesthetic opinion at that. It is like saying that rap music is responsible for the destruction of modern music - if it isn't your thing, just, well, let it be.
      • madmage, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1But see, "remastered" and they assume it must be better. People need to know what that remastering means to make an informed decision.
    • motionblur, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2Buried as inaccurate. It's impossible to be "just not into them" - it's built into our DNA to love The Beatles. ;)
      • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -5/+3Wrong!
      • AgentofId, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2maybe your DNA. I know who they are and respect their place in history, don't get me wrong. But they're also the musical equivalent of "It's A Wonderful Life." Which is to say, without ever owning a single thing they've ever produced I've had to hear more than my fill, and continue to be assaulted with it on a semi regular basis; even though I'm not remotely into rock, let alone pop-rock. You're right that they're inescapable, but that doesn't mean it's part of our DNA, and it certainly doesn't mean that we're all happy about the fact that it's inescapable (and yes, I do realize that I'm in the minority on this one)
    • solid12345, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2Honestly if you are a true music fan you would buy vinyl. More care and attention is given to the format, even new bands stamp limited copies on vinyl and they usually are much better crafted than those ***** break-apart CD cases and have large format artwork, nice die-cuts, all sorts of perks.
    • lazydrumhead, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Willynilly, thanks for playing, but remastering does not necessitate compression/limiting, especially for The Beatles.

      First of all, much of the Beatles' TWENTY-YEAR-OLD (read: crappy sounding with outdated technology) original masters are so far below the maximum digital limit that a simple normalization would a) not damage the sound and b) automatically sound better on everyone's non-16 bit system. Second, the way that Beatles songs are recorded (very sparse instrumentation) only a select few would even sound more radio-friendly if they were limited into oblivion.

      Third, I LOATHE the original CD mixes and masters, they're worse than even the stereo vinyl: drums are often on ONE freaking speaker to be 'artistic' (lame), sometimes the sounds are so ridiculously harsh and hissing I want to punch things in my room, and the drums sound as thin as paper (especially the kick). While Paul McCartney's bass often gets some very deep tones, the overall level of Beatles' mixes are still on par with early systems: very much less overall low-end and extra high-mid like vinyl.

      Fourth, here's a little Beatles' history for you:
      The Album "1" is released. No excessive compression, just better quality masters (think 'less hissing'), EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY louder than the original album.
      The "Love" remix album is released. The digital transfer/audio restoration quality borders on INCREDIBLE, is an incredibly quiet (not limited/dynamically squashed) album compared to most modern albums. Less hissing, etc.

      And honestly, sometimes final-track level compression makes songs sound more akin to the volume and equalization of a concert.
      I am incredibly excited for these new masters.
    • Samohtneas, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Amen to this. Go to Youtube or pick up your old vinyl/***** with CD. Listen to Nowhere Man or We All Live in A Yellow Submarine.

      You can just hear the time on it. The history of the music from that time period in which The Beatles Flourished... it's just how it's supposed to be heard. Not like it was recorded last week, loud as hell and louded with DRM *****.
  • FatmnFx, on 03/10/2008, -11/+5I Thought M.J. Owned All The Beatles Music
    • indie1982, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Nope, not all the Beatles music.

      In 1985 MJ reportedly paid $47 million for the publishing rights to most of the tracks (somewhere between 159 and 260).
      In 1995 MJ and Sony merged their publishing businesses so they jointly own almost all of the tracks.

      Paul McCartney currently holds the rights to Love Me Do, Please, Please Me, P.S. I Love You and Tell Me Why.
    • laaabaseball, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6You sir did not read the article.
    • Angostura, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1I believe he had to sell it off after his recent problems.
    • 68024, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3What Is Going On With All Those Caps Here In Your Comment?!
  • koolmoecraig, on 03/10/2008, -5/+157OH THANK GOD! It's sooooooo hard to find the Beatles recordings anywhere. Finally they made it easy for us to buy The White Album for the 30th time.
    • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -14/+6Well thank goodness we have you here to let us all know about how you can buy Beatles music almost anywhere and put it in whatever format or player you choose in a such a non-snarky way. Oh wait...that's not what you did. You simply repeated what everyone already knew and therefore didn't really need to be said. Well thanks for that I guess
      • srodolff, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Ugh........OK, here it is.....
        Go to store.
        Buy Beatles Album. Bring it home.
        Insert CD into PC.
        Load iTunes. Set iTunes to rip to MP3. Rip CD.
        Done!

        Hell, my 9 year old can do that.
    • lava, on 03/10/2008, -4/+10One thing about Beatles music is that it's universal. I wasn't alive when they were around, but once I "discovered" them I got their music in CD format. BUT OMG WHY IT WAS ALREADY ON VINYL!!! is what you would say.

      There will always be new generations being introduced to the Beatles. The current one happens to sometimes get their music via iTunes
    • petebot, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5ha ha ha. The Beatles are the George Lucases of pop music.
      • AgentofId, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1c'mon, paul's neck just isn't that fat.
  • rapincandy, on 03/10/2008, -5/+17doesnt MJ own the rights?
    • drgruney, on 03/10/2008, -6/+1Mary Jane?
    • Tomamama, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Sort of.
      Jackson owns the rights to the compositions, however, McCartney owns the rights to the studio recordings.
  • jjive, on 03/10/2008, -10/+4The White Album.
    Enough said.
    • sparf, on 03/10/2008, -2/+3Enough can never be said.
      *pours a fifth for George and John*
    • jjive, on 03/10/2008, -3/+2No...you're diggin down the White Album.
      What's become of Digg.com.
      • treed, on 03/10/2008, -3/+4The White Album is *****.

        There. I said it.
        • jjive, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Haa..Hannah Montana is sh!t.
          There, I said it.
        • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2You are of course welcome to your opinion and I respect that. However, the White Album contains many classic tracks that will live longer in the hearts and minds of music lovers that your life span so screw you.
        • sparf, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3I've heard a lot of works, but never one that touches on so many musical genre's at once. It shows versatility, craftsmanship, and heart. Even the horrible Ob-La-Dee serves a purpose in showing that to know the good in life, we must also experience the bad. It's just a beautiful thing.

          But as MacParrot said, you're welcome to your opinion.
  • Grimdotdotdot, on 03/10/2008, -19/+12What would it take to reunite the Beatles?
    Two bullets.
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 03/10/2008, -3/+7Aw come on, that was funny.
    • slearwig, on 03/10/2008, -5/+3Bad jokes are the sincerest form of jealousy.
    • GeekyGerge, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Technically, It could only take one. Just put them in a line.
  • renagadex2, on 03/10/2008, -14/+5Who cares?



    And I'm sure all of us download from itunes...
  • bxblox, on 03/10/2008, -7/+3so im assuming MJ is getting some money out of this
    • dimplemonkey, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2MJ owns the songbooks which I think is different... somebody confirm, please.
      • bxblox, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Im not sure what the difference is. I thought he had some ownership of publishing rights for nearly all of the beatles catalogue.
  • SonicTitan, on 03/10/2008, -11/+6I prefer possessing my music in the more tangible format of a CD. Thanks anyway.
  • thephosphorbox, on 03/10/2008, -5/+41So wait... don't the majority of people who would want the Beatles catalog already own it?
    • TheKage, on 03/10/2008, -5/+0Only a pirated ***** copy :(. I'm too cheap to get them in CD format. So this is good news since it's cheaper on iTunes and I can buy it from my computer. I hope Amazon mp3 store will get the catalog as well.
    • fortezza, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I am not a Beatles fan, but I would think if you were you'd have all of this stuff by now. Before someone says remastered is better...do you remember when George Lucas remastered Star Wars?
  • goodsela, on 03/10/2008, -7/+13Surely anyone who really wanted it has already purchased Beatles music from mp3sparks.com or allofmp3.com where it has been available for over 2 years.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/10/2008, -3/+10Youre getting burried by Appletards that have never tried anything but itunes.
      Expect it, you're ruining their reality!
      • Laxaloot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1or maybe people enjoy the fact that these will be remastered as well as legal, whereas mp3sparks and allofmp3 does not meet either of those specifications.
    • Chassit, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Or they downloaded it for free from any number of illegal sources.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Or they bought them on CD when they came out 20 years ago like I did.


  • Gm7Cadd9, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6I am pretty sure MJ owns publishing rights, not the original recording rights. So if a band wants to cover a Beatles song (and release it), MJ gets paid, but if the original recordings are re-mixed, remastered, re-released he gets nothing.

    With that being said, I would have thought something like "Across the Universe" would have paid his most recent debts, maybe I have it all wrong.
  • Flashman, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2I think he waited until divorce proceedings began so there wouldn't be as much money for Heather Mills to skim off his estate.
  • diargasm, on 03/10/2008, -6/+81Finally! I've been waiting 40 years for the Beatles to come to itunes so I can finally listen to them.
  • thelastdyingday, on 03/10/2008, -18/+11***** itunes, use torrents.
  • heyiquit, on 03/10/2008, -15/+8People still BUY music?
    • kotatsu, on 03/10/2008, -5/+9Funnily enough, yes, because to not buy it is to steal it. Maybe you steal food and cars too? Theft isn't a hard concept to grasp, you might want to try it.
      • lobasuu, on 03/10/2008, -6/+8You wouldn`t kill a policeman. You wouldn't steal his helmet. And then ***** in it. And then send it back to the policeman`s grieving widow.

        Seriously, though, I am so sick and tired of people saying that downloading a pirated song is just the same as stealing someones car. You can`t compare the digital world to the real world.

        Can you make thousands of copies of your cars in seconds? For free? Didn`t think so.
      • supermajic, on 03/10/2008, -5/+2Digg is so ridiculous. OMG PIRATE BAY IS DOWN NOOO.. ***** RIAA.. MPAA.. WHY BUY VISTA WHEN YOU CAN PIRATE IT? SO AND SO IS BACK TO PIRATE MOVIES STARTING WITH I AM LEGEND - HE IS SO AWESOME.
        "People still BUY music?" Dugg down.
        Reply "yeah it's stealing isn't. obviously you steal cars and food too" Dugg up.

        whhhhhhy?
    • brihar73, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8The selfless people do, yes. Especially when they appreciate the artist and want to give them something in return for their hard work instead of contributing to higher prices for honest people to make up for it.
  • Dorepoll, on 03/10/2008, -6/+4I would love it if they remastered a bunch of it. Like the Love album, but not altering the song itself.
  • aliguana, on 03/10/2008, -3/+9and who doesn't already own Beatles records/tapes/cds? you plan on buying them again, just because?
    • usingpond, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Do you think that people are just born into the world owning these albums? Think about it for longer than two seconds you idiot.
    • devophl, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I'll be interested to see how this goes. Most people under the age of 40 consider the Beatles to be part of the candy coated lolli-pop music of the 60s and not real rock and roll. From the kids I talk to, the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin have 10 times the following of the Beatles. For those of us who are old enough to have listened to the Beatles when their recordings were new, we know of a time where people's interest in music extended to a half dozen genres. We enjoyed all types of music and the Beatles variety was a breath of fresh air compared to the generic, stick to a sound and wear it out music of the time. The kids of today only know of one genre and consider the rest of the music to be crap. Kids listen to hip-hop like its the only kind of music and can't be bothered by something that's not rap. Consequently, I do wonder how many people under the age of 30 would consider buying Beatles songs on iTunes? I'm curious to find out.

      For me personally, I did like the release of a lot of the John, Paul, George and Ringo music. Even though I have everything the Beatles released, I don't have much of the post Beatles, Beatles music. It was nice to fill out that part of my music collection.
  • loudthing, on 03/10/2008, -0/+25poor old, forgotten Ringo
    • Ydnar723, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0and all he's got is a photograph...
  • thelastdyingday, on 03/10/2008, -13/+8the people digging down the comments are a bunch of fags.
    now dig me down.
  • skyz, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2 mj owns the rights or much of the rights to the publishing catalog a good portion of which he sold to sony - emi owns the rights to the master recordings - not the same thing - in other words if you wan to sing a beatles song on a commercial or in a movie you pay those who hold the publishing - if you want the actual beatles singing then you pay emi -
  • tekiek, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Please don't give Heather Mills a dime!
  • kotatsu, on 03/10/2008, -3/+10Why is this a big deal? Surely everyone who has an interest in this music owns the CDs already.
  • WazzaInc, on 03/10/2008, -7/+13Meh. Everyone has probably downloaded every one of their albums illegaly.
  • JSavage37, on 03/10/2008, -9/+4HOLY *****, THATS AMAZING!

    Now I can not download load it AND not pay for it at the same time!
  • brickbat, on 03/10/2008, -6/+16Face it, without Lennon, The Beatles would have been Wings.
    • Angostura, on 03/10/2008, -3/+3Yeh because Lennon's solo work really rocked.

      ... or not. Did he ever come up with anything as amaaaazing as the Frog Chorus?
      • ElvisMMI, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Without McCartney, The Beatles would have been The Plastic Ono Band.
      • usingpond, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2I don't agree with brickbat, but Lennon's solo career kicked ass. In fact isn't that pretty well agreed upon? He had like all these top singles. Seriously dude?
    • iggy2012, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Wings was ok. I loved (still do actually) Silly Love Songs.

      (waiting to get buried)
  • blugill, on 03/10/2008, -32/+24Most overrated band of all time.
    • Sithlrd, on 03/10/2008, -17/+10Totally agree. Not enough people care about the Beatles to make it worth 400M bucks. The best thing about the Beatles was they were knocked out of the top ten by Led Zeppelin.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3you're very wrong.
        • supermanred, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Dude, he's EPIC ***** wrong. When the re-mastered tracks come out on iTunes it's gonna be huge. If they release tracks with quality better than CD, then they will get a LOT of money from me for the tracks.

          Oh and by the way,

          The Beatles are the best-selling musical group of all time, estimated by EMI to have over one billion discs and tapes sold worldwide.[citation needed]
          The Beatles have notched up the most multi-platinum selling albums for any artist or musical group (thirteen in the U.S. alone).[citation needed]
          The Beatles have a record six diamond-selling albums (10 million copies): Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles, Abbey Road, The Beatles: 1962-1966, The Beatles: 1967-1970, and The Beatles 1.
          The Beatles have had more number one albums than any other group (19 in the U.S. and 15 in the United Kingdom).
          The Beatles spent the highest number of weeks at number one in the albums chart (174 in the UK and 132 in the U.S.).
          The most successful first week of sales for a double album (The Beatles Anthology Volume 1, which sold 855,473 copies in the U.S. from 21 November to 28 November 1995).
          The Beatles have the fastest selling CD of all time with 1. It sold over 13 million copies in four weeks.[105]
    • thestaton, on 03/10/2008, -12/+8couldn't agree more.
    • Witchdoktor, on 03/10/2008, -5/+7No
    • PicassoLSUS, on 03/10/2008, -5/+8Agreed. Hate them.
    • modsuperstar, on 03/10/2008, -2/+6Your mom is overrated
    • DephexTwin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3I am willing to bet that your comment will not be the most overrated comment of all time.
    • imbetterthanu, on 03/10/2008, -2/+4There will never be another band that will have the same impact the Beatle's had on music and culture. Never.
      • blugill, on 03/10/2008, -6/+1They were only important to drugged up, unwashed, flea infested hippies......blech...
      • ManInTheBunker, on 03/10/2008, -2/+3No no, that was the Dead!
      • petebot, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1The Spice Girls.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1There are a couple of Billion kids in middle and high schools just getting into music who will discover the Beatles for the first time......this same bunch of kids will discover them through downloads.

      Their music is timeless, FACT. and most everything you listen to today has been influenced by them in same shape or form.
  • maxshanly, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5So let me introduce to you, the one and only Stevie Jobs and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
  • jameswelch, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3What this means, which is bigger news in my mind,
    is that the CD remasters are complete, and if "Love" is anything to go by, they should be a huge improvement, and not too dynamically compressed

  • D4rklight, on 03/10/2008, -20/+15who gives a *****?
    • replikhant, on 03/10/2008, -3/+10EVERYONE except all the Backstreet Boys fans like YOU.
  • mlfoley, on 03/10/2008, -1/+17Who cares? I'm a huge Beatles fan, but I already bought all of their CDs. Why would I want to rebuy them from iTunes? There are plenty of hits collections out there, so why does anyone seriously want to pick them up on iTunes if you already own their CDs? The Beatles come from an era when the entire album was strong, so it seems pointless to just buy specific songs from them and anyone who loves them already has their discs so I don't quite get why this is such a big deal.
    • ibeetle, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1It really at this point is bragging rights. Microsoft/MTV have been rumored to be trying to get The Beatles for sometime now. Bill Gates knowing Steve Jobs love of the band I am sure he was doing it just give Steve the finger. Microsoft's music store URGE even had the band listed, complete with album artwork. However, no tracks were available for sale.
      There is hope that the release of this music would be remastered. The CD's available now were done almost two decades ago. There is a much better understanding today, as well as better equipment in digital remastering.
      With this news there will almost be a spike in iTunes visits and when the actual release there will be a spike in sales. Easily pushing the online music store to the number one spot edging out Wal-mart. That would make the stock skyrocket.
      Besides, what Beatles/Apple fan would not get their jeans all sticky just seeing Steve Jobs on stage with Paul and/or Ringo at this summers MacWorld.
    • replikhant, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6mlfoley: While Generation X and everything that came before probably owns several Beatles albums, the new generations, who are subjected to the worst radio programming in history, will eventually wander back to an era when artists were actually rewarded for exploring new sonic territories.
      Regarding the "Entire album" argument, the Beatles started off as a single oriented band,(remember that Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were only released as singles) and eventually were the ones who introduced the world to full conceptual albums. So probalby everything before Revolver will be just perfect for iTunes.
      • dn11, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2but everything post Revolver is the best stuff (actually I would say Rubber Soul onward, but its arguable).
    • DephexTwin, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3You know... when I was 14 or 15 and starting discovering the Beatles, I started buying their albums on CD. By then there had already been 30 years for people to buy the Beatles albums in various formats and not care when the "yet-another-format" of CD came out. But there's always some new generation just on the cusp of discovering the Beatles that will probably look at a place like iTunes for the songs.

      Besides posterity.... it'll also be nice for people ripping their Beatles CD's in iTunes who will now get cover art automatically :)
    • jp12380, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Besides.... if you already have all of their cds, it's called ripping into itunes where they can go onto your ipod already. Why buy them in a worse format?
      • supermanred, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Actually, if they master the tracks from original recordings or VINYL then they could conceivably be BETTER quality than the original CDs you bought. A lot of the Beatles CD issues were flattened (EQ-wise) and their volume raised. Sounds like *****..

        Steve Jobs loves the beatles, Im sure they are going to do a lot of work on the tracks and probably use master tapes and or virgin vinyl records to encode these puppies.

        I'll let you know when they hit iTunes, Ill compare to my CD rips...
    • dn11, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3the upside for Apple: marketing. Can't you already see the Beatles themed iPod commercials?
      • petebot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Yes, and I've already thrown up in disgust.
    • usingpond, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Because as we all know, the Beatles never released any singles! Idiot.
      • supermanred, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I have a few 45s downstairs that say different, unless they are counterfiets, but Im pretty sure they released a *****-ton of 45s, probably the majority of their income at the time as every DJ, every radio station etc had to buy a physical copy of the record. Nowadays it's all digital upload/downloads.
  • Shao00, on 03/10/2008, -11/+5people buy DRM music on itunes still?
    • MJ420, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4Eh, not sure, but isn't EMI involved in this? - ergo NO DRM!?!
      • supermanred, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I buy DRM free music on iTunes, even the DRMed stuff I can play on 5 computers, and I only own 2 computers plus one at work that I authorized. I can still buy 2 more computers and play it on those too. Seriously, it's not as bad as it sounds.
  • Vtorch, on 03/10/2008, -7/+6No big deal. If the Beatles sell their music on DRM free iTunes.....then, NOW we are talking.
    • chokeaduck, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Not sure why you are being dugg down, I agree with you. At least on Amazon, so I can play it OTHER players. Heck my old Sansa could come out of retirement and be a Beatles only player! Sweet!
      • JudgeMonkey, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1As soon as I saw this article I checked amazon, there are karaoke editions, lullaby editions, cover bands, but I couldn't just find Beatles tracks.
    • vetjet, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Who the hell cares. It's infected with the DRM *****. DRM has now gone the way of the dodo. Thanks Amazon, ***** the Beatles (unelss they go DRM free)
    • vetjet, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Who the hell cares. It's infected with the DRM *****. DRM has now gone the way of the dodo. Thanks Amazon, ***** the Beatles (unelss they go DRM free)
  • uselessexpert, on 03/10/2008, -14/+5I already have all the Beatles music I need.... and I got it for free!
    Thanks PirateBay...
    • polymyxin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5I already have all the Beatles music I need.... and I got it for free!
      Thanks, ***** security at Best Buy...
      • JudgeMonkey, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3At least that would take an ounce of skill and be worth mentioning. Why people even act like downloading is something magic and tough is beyond me.
    • supermanred, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1You're the reason that PC gaming is dying. Buy a ***** song once in a while, man... :)
  • p51d007, on 03/10/2008, -15/+9Yuck.......as someone who was a kid in the 60's, when the Beatles were "famous", and had a teenage sister who played their songs 24/7, I hope I never hear them again!
    • DephexTwin, on 03/10/2008, -1/+11You used quotes... are you trying to imply that they weren't actually famous?
    • jacksplatter, on 03/10/2008, -5/+0Well I wasn't a kid in the 60s, but I was in the early 70s. I hope I never have to hear their boring drivel again either. Move on already, people.
      • birdly, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Why do I have a feeling that you're enamored with the first Richard Marx CD?
        • jacksplatter, on 03/10/2008, -2/+0Nope, not at all, just not into overhyped pop drivel
          • birdly, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Overhyped? I challenge you to name any band that had a bigger influence on 20th century music. The hype is a direct result of The Beatles' superiority, not the other way around.
            Drivel? Go ahead and name your favorite band, if you have the guts. I have a feeling it'll bring me a good laugh.
    • birdly, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Your teenage sister sounds "hot"!
      • lofidan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Your comment was "funny". Likewise, my comment was entirely "unexpected".
  • taxali, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4400 M dollars ... wow how rich can Paul get???
  • EllisAshbrook, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5what about ringo?
    • jayb1rd, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2If I could meet either one of the living Beatles, I would go for Ringo. He's awesome.
  • Rileyluck7, on 03/10/2008, -9/+1i thought Micheal jackson owned the beatles music
  • lordmike, on 03/10/2008, -6/+17Isn't it crazy that these guys can still make fortune 40 years after they actually put in any "work" on the project? Imagine getting paid 40 years after you finished some excel spreadsheet at work... The whole copyright thing is so ridiculous... the guy hasn't worked in 40 years and he gets $400 million.... amazing!
    • MacParrot, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8He won't get "400 million". The total will be shared with Ringo and the estates of Lennon and Harrison.
      But yeah it's WAY too much since according to you there's no difference between iconic music that has influenced musicians for over 40 years and has led to some of the greatest songs ever and an Excel Spreadsheet. Are you going to release that spreadsheet in a DRM-free format?
    • replikhant, on 03/10/2008, -2/+2THAT is the art of a good businessman; the rest will have to work and worry every single day of their productive life and then be forced to retire in an elderly farm.
    • colincornaby, on 03/10/2008, -2/+6God forbid we actually live in a country where you can own something...
    • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2This is why copyright is such a bad idea. Macca should be forced to write something new/decent and not live off his past like this.
      • mhender, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Lennon was a better writer. Let's not ruin the Beatles name by releasing a mediocre album.
      • polymyxin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Why shouldn't he, or any other artist, be allowed to live off their past? Just because 40 years have passed doesn't change the fact that it's his work (and that of the other Beatles, and note that they, or their estates, will be receiving money as well).
        • ThirdPrize, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3because this is the internet and practically everyone on this site thinks music should be free. so there
    • dn11, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5dude, make an Excel Spreadsheet that people will want to read 40 years from now, and YOU TO could be making $400 million deals. Oh no, maybe not. This is just the world telling you that your jobs sucks even more than you previously thought it did.
    • shark72, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1Yes, it really is quite amazing. The Beatles certainly won the jackpot, didn't they? Keep in mind that of all the records released in the 1960s, 99% of them have no demand today.

      Right-wingers like to point out that social services are a Bad Thing by pointing out the one-in-a-thousand "welfare queen" or some similar horror story. We rightfully call ***** on this type of argument, because it's flawed and disingenuous. But, many people do the same thing with copyright law: call the system ridiculous, and present as evidence an example that's a huge, HUGE edge condition.

      Still not sure what I mean? Look at the wikipedia page on 1960s bands:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1960s_music_ ...

      How many of them are still making significant money today? Hell, how many of them are making money for their record companies today, even? And this is only the list of bands that are worthy of a Wikipedia page.
    • mparker7410, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Do millions of people love your spreadsheet?
    • Skidmark66, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3yeah but what he/they did was 400 million times better than other people, as it turns out
      • jacksplatter, on 03/10/2008, -4/+0yawn
      • mparker7410, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, exactly, what he/they did WAS 400 million times better than what other people did.
    • alwilson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0Comparing Beatles music to a spreadsheet = FAIL

      Put two groups of people in rooms. Have one group create spreadsheets and the other create original Beatles style music. Which group will have the best chance of success?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.