What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
60 Comments
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Argh, I screwed that up. Sorry.
Neither Aspinall nor Apple Corps said that they'll be on iTunes; they just said that they'll be "online". There actually are other online stores besides iTunes: Wal-Mart, Napster, Amazon, emusic, and some others. - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Support Michael Jackson. Buy Beatles tunes.
- cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah, it sounds like the quote just says "downloads"... it could be a reference to any number of things.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Zeppelin was never on Apple Corp or Apple Records. They started on Atlantic and then moved to their own label, Swan Song, for the later albums. If the Apples "work it out" (to quote a great Beatles song), it would mean nothing for Zep on iTMS.
Don't bother with iTunes. Just go down to your local used CD store and pick up a copy. You can surely find a copy of any of Zep's albums for less than a sawbuck and you get much more than you would get for your $10 on iTMS, such as liner notes and the ability to encode at a rate higher than 128. Bear in mind, I'm a NY'er and am spoiled by a plethora of used CD stores. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Interesting that you cite "Revolver." "Tomorrow Never Knows" was years ahead of its time. What do the Beatles have to offer? Listen to the rawness of the early Beatles and then listen to the resurgence of garage rock.
Great music persists no matter what. Early Elvis, anything by Johnny Cash, the Beatles, and the Stones (when they were on ABCKO) - all are immensely enjoyable decades after their recording. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> In Russia, their songs are considered out of copyright and public domain.
The same thing is about to happen in other places, like the U.K.
This might be one of the reasons why they are remastering. Copies of the originals might be about to enter the public domain, but remastered copies essentially create a new work, in effect "renewing" their copyright. In order to legally copy the public domain songs, you'd have to get hold of original copies, not remastered copies. If they swamp the market with the remastered versions, this isn't as easy to do. - tktk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So what exactly was the purpose of the lawsuit? If the Beatles had planned for a while to be on iTunes, then they've basically given their approval for Apple Comp. & iTunes. Was the lawsuit just an annoyance to get a better deal from iTunes? Right now it seems like Apple Corps. just threw some money at the lawyers.
Or is Apple Corps. trying to get some recognition and fame? I wouldn't be surprised if the Beatles / iTunes ads goes something like "The Beatles by Apple Corps., brought to you by Apple Comp. + iTunes". - thetrav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hear ya! Anything that is "remastered" usually sounds crappier. They totally suck the dynamic range out of the track so it sounds LOUD. Most people precieve this as "better", but it makes audiophiles cringe.
The tracks will already sound like crap when they're in the iTMS because of the compression used, but now they'll be even worse. When it comes to a band like the Beatles, you'd think they want it to sound as close to the original as possible. You know, preserve some of that one-of-a-kind sound.
Bleh. - Sturm55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Beatles have been on allofmp3.com and alltunes for ages now. In Russia, their songs are considered out of copyright and public domain.
- citizensagainst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By "remastering" Neil is alluding to the fact that Beatles fans (the hardcore ones who've been collecting pirated and bootleged remasters and outtakes for years) have been looking for new CDs like virtually every other 60s band has gotten. Dylan. The Stones' Decca albums...all remastered. Why? Because the original CDs sound like crap. The vinyl still sounds better (some would argue it always will). EMI did a crappy job digitizing the music the first time around--technology has improved since then. This is not a new concept. Luckily the Capitol albums sound great but they manged to screw that up too: http://www.whatgoeson.com/story.200604131.html?id=20060413
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am glad to see that I am not the only one who is frustrated with the music industry's need to make music "hotter".
This could be specially disastrous with the music of the Beatles. It might have been great music, but its sound quality was not the best to begin with. - h3xley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4oh god they're remastering them *cringes*. Am I the only one who feels recently remastered stuff has gone down hill? All that dynamic range thrown away just so the CD is generally louder, and probably we'll see original mono tracks with half-assed attempts to make them stereo which really just sound awful - not to mention other horrors.
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He actually had to sell most of his ownership stake in the Beatles to Sony to pay for his two lawsuits.
- Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5mislabeled and misleading title
the digg post title reads "Beatles Songs to Appear on iTunes Music Store"
the actual article title reads"Beatles Songs on iTunes?"
where on earth did that question mark go ?
and guess what, sure the actual quote inside the article talks about making the beatles catalog available for download but it makes absolutely no mention of itunes.
"We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages. I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get the publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc." - dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5MacWorld.uk is confirming this story from StarPulse.com.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Then buy some Beatles CD's. What does it matter whether they're on iTMS if you already have the albums?
- modpancake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Okay, so it took forever, but they finally carry Rammstein, Smashing Pumpkins, Dave Matthews Band, Fall Out Boy and (soon) The Beatles. They are still missing some pretty big names though:
-- Tool
-- Radiohead
-- Led Zeppelin
-- Metallica
-- Linkin Park
-- AC/DC
(Any others I'm forgetting?)
I find it astonishing how they are unable to strike some sort of deal with the record companies that own the rights to that music... those companies must be oblivious to how much additional money they could make for basically no effort on their part. These bands are huge, and would each get millions of song purchases for sure. - mikegifford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1man i d/led the white album once from a torrent (I own the CD) and it sounded so great because they had recorded it right off the vinyl. Thats what they need to do if they out it up on itunes
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That makes no sense. I hope you realize that a) Apple Records (not Apple Music) released the Beatles albums and b) Apple Computers, Inc. would need Apple Corps/Apple Records permission to sell those albums.
The things that hurt Apple Computers, Inc.'s case are the exclusive tracks and the fact that they have produced tracks (for Elvis Costello and PJ Harvey), which goes to show that Apple Computers, Inc. has gotten into the music field of use. That's what makes Apple Computers, Inc. hard to distinguigh from a music label.
And Apple Computers, Inc. is probably going to have to remove the logo anyway. - mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dvddesign: He still owns their catalogue. There've been no reports of him selling any stake in that. His "lawsuit" was indeed expensive and long, but the man is not broke by any means. Don't let 'em fool ya, he still has deep pockets. He will be expecting some royalty checks with this release.
"All the lonely people... Where do they all belong?" - palillont, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why is everyone assuming that because he said they will offer downloads, that songs will be on iTunes?! They could just as easily shaft Apple and go to Real or Napster or MSN, or even pull what McCartney's currently doing and just offer direct DRMed downloads from their official site. Let's just not jump to conclusions here. Read the article and the quote!
edit: Thank you boredzo! - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If by "remastered" he means ruining the mixing like what happened with the Yellow Submarine songtrack, I say f*ck that. The mixing and mastering on albums like Sgt Pepper's is part of the experience. Whereas the vocals and guitars are on separate channels and put 180 deg. from each other on the original, on the remastered Yellow Submarine, they got moved closer to center.
I already have all the albums on LP and CD and have ripped them Lossless from CD.
Sorry, Apple Corp - no more money for you.
That goes for Apple Computers, Inc., too. Buy CD, not AAC. - ki4gmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Either way, being able to buy them online will be great for newcomers to one of the most influencial and popular bands on the earth.
- apflwr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2
Perhaps they'll start their own music store... And call it Apple.
Okay, maybe not. But it would make the lawsuits interesting. - godmode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Michael Jackson owns the rights to all released Beatles music. It has nothing to do with Apple Inc.
- manoftheisland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3In Soviet Russia mp3 download You
- bwjacket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can see buying some of the earlier, popish, non-complicated Beatles albums on iTunes, but 128 kbps just isn't going to do justice to songs like "A Day in the Life." iTunes is flawed in this way.
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree.
Hopefully Paul and Ringo will be involved in the remastering and will make sure that the material is treated respectfully and that it sounds like they want it to sound. - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1hmm..doesn't that kinda go against all the court proceedings they've filed?
- so1omon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I had heard that MJ had to sell off large portions of his Beatles rights as well. The thing that everyone always seems to get wrong is that MJ never owned the Beatles catalog. He owned their PUBLISHING rights. There's a huge difference. Publishing rights only has to do with Songwriter royalties. A Songwriter can only personally own up to 50 percent of the rights to their royalties. The other 50 percent has to be managed by a Publishing company. That's what MJ has the rights to... That 50 percent of Songwriter royalties.
Word to the wise for budding rock stars... Start your own publishing company. It's the only way you'll ever see all of your royalties. The unfortunate thing is that most major labels will require that you sell off your publishing rights to a label owned company. - glitchp-udd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yeah....i suspect the beatles catalog might be sold directly thru apple corp, rather than any existing online store. apple corp is very shrewd and may be able to take advantage of a loophole that allows them to collects *all* the money from beatles recordings as current deals with capitol can be construed to be only for CDs or physical mediums, leaving apple corp free to do leave capitol out of the picture.
aspinall has been with the beatles forever and a day. and there's a reason for that.
most significant here is the fact that the discs are getting remastered...altho i have my doubts about whether they'll get the sound right this time 'round either. - dilg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As mcbesq said, go buy some CDs! Half.com can hook you up. You can get copies of all the original albums (not anthologies, etc) for under $90 right now.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think you've confused "Kevin" with "McGurk" in the member name. Nice try, though. Eventually you'll get the hang of the whole "being clever" thing
- truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2ive been waiting for the beatles to get on itunes I only have their most popular songs and would like to preview some of their other stuff.
- mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Album only?
That would be funny, considering that so much of the Beatles early success was during the singles era. - tuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1this is bull the beatl or whomever controls this apple corps is not digg worthy only dugg it to keep track of the comments!
- stray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If it gets on iTMS, my guess is that the tracks will be album-only.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I respect Apple Corps and all, but man did fate smile on them. Not that they were on the way out or were wrong with this Apple Computer mess, but I can only cringe when I think of what it must have taken to get an agreement and how much of each purchase of a Beatles song on iTMS will go straight to Apple Corps. But, its good news for everysone, so great.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ummm... who said iTunes was going to have the Beatles? And sorry.... Tool? Yeah, not really on the same level as Metallica, Zepp and AC//DC.
Once again, why not just go down to the store and buy the CD?
(oh, right, the whole geeky the-sun-is-trying-to-kill-me-and-the-grass-makes-my-allergies-act-up thing. well, that's ok. just stay in your bedroom where you're safe from pollen and girls) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What is iTunes?
- theven7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I wonder if this means the Zeppelin catalogue will be on iTunes now, as well? My understanding is that they were not offered up to this point because the albums's rights were owned by a subsidiary of Apple Corps. Anyone know?
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Why do people firmly believe MJ still controls all of it?
He had to liquidate a large majority of his stake to keep his finances afloat after this recent lawsuit. He doesn't own that much anymore. - mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This is going to revolutionize the iTMS.
- bprice25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0How funny is this? Apple Corp suing Apple for distributing music, then turning around and wanting to sell Beatles albums through iTunes. If you can't beat em, join em? I'd only download the albums if Michael Jackson doesn't get a penny of the royalties.
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Michael Jackson and the Beatles crap needs to be resolved here before you post more idiotic half cocked ideas about a pedophile getting cash off of them.
He's getting something, but it probably isn't alot.
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm - sych0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1god I love the beatles!! I've been waiting for this for so long. I'd love for this to happen
(on itunes or not) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Beatles = New Kids on the Block, circa 1963. Then they got high.
- readis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0iTunes was not mentioned, however, I see this differently and in a darker light. If it go's down the path of Apple Music publishing on iTMS, it can add more fuel to the lawsuit fire. By having their catalog of music in iTMS with their logo attached to it, they can claim that it is impossible to separate themselves from Apple Computers iTMS. It could give them a better edge for forcing iTMS to remove the Apple Computer logo, so that customers will know that there is a difference between them.
My 2 cents. - breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Actually, in Soviet Russia out of copyright and public domain are considered their songs!
- haruki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Well, not sure how this affects - anything. As much as I like the Beatles, I'd prefer it if kids and teenagers listened to the Rollings Stones and songs like 'Star Star' and 'Sympathy for the Devil'. The Beatles, well I'm not sure what they can offer any more. Their music and ideas have been so assimilated that as much as I'd like to meet a fourteen year old who loves his copy of 'Revolver', I'd be much more intrigued if he just -got- 'Exile on main st'. And, more so than the Stones I'd like to see young people getting into David Bowie. And in the end maybe this umpteenth Beatles reissue will lead people to more liberating music.
Still I hope more people buy the remasters on physical media and rip their own copies. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is