Beatles and iTunes At Last? 246
rjshirts writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the Beatles and Apple have signed a reported $400 million dollar deal to bring the entire Beatles Catalog to iTunes. From the article: 'As of today there is no time frame as to when the catalog will appear online, but it seems to just be a matter of time. McCartney himself even said in November that the catalog would be making its way onto the the store some time in 2008. While we have heard this sort of thing time and time again, this might just be the real deal. Prepare yourself — Beatlemania is coming to iTunes.'"
Bad joke. (Score:3, Funny)
Yoko Ono.
Really does apply to this context.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In classical music there is the phenomenon that often when new styles began, the composers doing the new style were not so hot. After the style matured, the music got better. Early Baroque, classical and romantic music are examples. Although I guess Beethoven was a pretty damn good bridge between classical and r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see how someone might not like their earlier, boy band stuff, or their later period experimental tripe. I don't care for a lot of it myself. But it's completely incomprehensible for me for someone to entirely dismiss the Beatles. I know you're probably not a music critic, but I'd be interested in some more explicit reasons why you don't like the Beatles.
Also, what type of music do you like? I imagine you don't like pop songs that much, but I would be *very* interested to hear your point of view
I love the Beatles, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And no my friends, you don't have to buy the White Album again. When you bought the album 40 years ago, you bought a lifetime license to listen to the music on that recording. It wasn't specifically written, and the so-called entertainment lawyers of the present will disagree, but nevertheless it is real and valid in any real-world sense. And the glorious Slashdaughters here live in the modern real world. Where entertainment lawyers don't really mean much.
Again, I love the Beatles. I download their MIDI files, run them through notation software and study all the little guitar turnarounds and chord progressions in their most obscure recordings. I remix their old audio recordings using the latest digital phase-cancelling and audio mastering software. Yes, I love the Beatles...
But these are forty year old recordings. They came out between 1962 and 1969. Believe me, when they did come out there was nobody under the age of thirty who gave a shit about any pop music recording from forty years previously (the 1920s).
So, yes, I understand why anyone under the age of 30 would feel a little annoyed by all the attention that this band and their records continue to receive in the present day. But, grow up and be cool a little. The Beatles were great. But their classic popular music now, along with all the rest of the classic popular music recordings.
If you don't like them, then just ignore them. And ignore the people who rant on about them.
If you like them or are just ambivalent, then just copy the songs and let it just be one more CD on the stack in the closet.
And for God's sake don't give Sir Paul or Yoko Ono or EMI any more money! Or you'll be subjected to Beatles revivals every few years for the rest of your lives!
Re:Bad joke. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with Michael Stipe of REM, who referred to their music as "elevator music". Maybe it was ground breaking at the time, but it doesn't hold up.
Elevator music? You clearly have not ever sat down and listened to the Beatles albums. Sure, they have some slower songs, but there isn't a rock style they didn't touch on or invent whole cloth. The Beatles pretty much invented heavy metal music. Listen to Helter Skelter (yeah, that's elevator music) or I Want You. I Feel Fine was the first song to use guitar distortion. Listen to the hard rock baseline on Hey Bulldog.
Do yourself a favor and really listen to their albums. The breadth of different styles they did is astounding and unmatched by any other band.
Re: Bad joke? Elevator Music? Different Styles? (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, George Martin, also known as the "5th Beatle" and his elite circle of musicologist friends, had a great deal to do with the sophistication of the Beatles best stuff... [etc]
I think that's too uncharitable to the Beatles. I believe George Martin was an integral part of their success, but I think in the case of the Beatles, you can't separate the parts and conclude "this was what made them special." It was *all* the parts (yes, including Ringo!) that made the whole thing. Paul's gift for melody and baselines, John's harder edge, the contrast between Paul's intrinsic optimism and John's intrinsic pessimism, George's guitar chops and spirituality, and Ringo's general "niceness" formed a lot of the glue that held the thing together (along with his underrated drumming and rock-solid timing).
It's not like George Martin only produced the Beatles. I believe he was an important part of things and his classical training added a lot. But it added a lot because the Beatles were geniuses enough to use the resource. For example, George didn't suggest the strings -- McCartney figured out the strings would work in Eleanor Rigby, from listening to Vivaldi. He composed the baseline and Martin arranged it.
Also listen to Martin's compositions on Yellow Submarine. They're not bad, but they don't point to any "hidden genius" that was fueling the Beatles. Nor do we see any of the same Beatlesque experimentation in other George Martin-produced groups.
The reason the solo efforts aren't as impressive as the Beatles is the same reason -- the magic depended on all of them together. Paul has admitted this many times. Imagine being Paul "freaking" McCartney (or Lennon) and wanting to experiment with stuff after the Beatles, but having no one around him who was equal enough to say, "Paul, that's utter crap. You can do better," as the other Beatles could.
Having said that, I think the Beatles' greatest strength was, like the Tamla Motown stuff in the same era, the finger they had on the pulse of 60's Yuppie love...
I agree with this, but I'd go further and say the Beatles' greatest strength was their willingness to experiment with all the various styles around them and synergize them into new things. A lot of artists, as you point out, came out of that era, but only one group utterly dominated.
And just to add one last point, I think an underrated factor in the Beatles success was that they played together for years and perfected their craft. Many people think the Beatles just exploded onto the scene, but that's not what happened. They paid their dues in really harsh conditions, which is also one of the reasons they had such charm -- they had been mixing in comedy to their stage act for a long time. If you haven't read the Anthology book, I recommend it. There's a lot of back story to the Beatles and what made them.
it isn't crap just because you don't like it (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vinyl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
muffled and worn (Score:2)
You're in luck! I have the digital equivalent - a 128Kpbs MP3!
It sounds just like a worn out record, not quite enough oomph... but you never have to waste time and money wearing out another vinyl copy again!
Disclaimer: I sold all my vinyl records in the late-80's and gave my player to my parents, who still use it for Elvis vinyls and Reader's Digest collections.
Re:There Is Something Different About Beatles' Vin (Score:2)
For starters, the "Wall of Sound" technique used on the original Let It Be was essentially optimized for playback on AM radio and cheap jukeboxes.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
It's taken 30 years, but the irony is that the $400M is still cheap compared to the costs to everyone of relitigating [wikipedia.org] the original lawsuit against... Apple Records [wikipedia.org], originally owned by none other than The Beatles.
The case in question is one of the landmark cases whereby trademarks can be deemed non-infringing, so long as there a "reasonable man" wouldn't be confused. In 1978, there was absolutely no confusion that the "Apple" that computers wasn't the same "Apple" as the one that made vinyl discs.
In the 80s, when computers started to be capable of producing sound (and especially when "Apple" computers started to talk MIDI), the "Apple" vinyl disc company tried again, and as a side effect, killed the Apple ][.
Every few decades, Apple Records tries to fuck Apple Computer out of a few million more bucks, and yes, they did it in response to the Mac, and in response to iTunes. It was only a couple of years ago that it was finally laid to rest.
For $400M in exchange for an agreement whereby Apple Computer can finally start selling the products of the Beatles (which, unlike the past few times, might actually be a win-win for both Apple and the Beatles), this had better be the last time this lawsuit rears its ugly head.
But much like the fact that the Beatles want to sell you the White Album every few years, this case will probably show up again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could have structured the deal to pay out over a few years though, it's hitting close to $1 billion dollars for the buyo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An important thing to remember is that the Beatles catalog is owned by EMI, so it will almost assuredly be available in iTunes Plus.
The bit rate (256kbits) is good enough for pseudo-stereo recordings (singing in one channel, music in the other) that are 40+ years old. And the only bit of DRM on them is metadata with your ID; they will play on any player or software that supports MPEG4. Or, like any iTunes purchase, just burn to CD, re-rip and enjoy in the format of your choice. (Yes, I know, lossy form
Go ahead, get the puns out of the way... (Score:4, Funny)
You know, it's been a long and winding road, etc, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know, I just woke up, fell out of bed. And red this news. It's like they say, tomorrow never knows. But, please, Don't let me down! Let they be good quality mp3s, or even better, oggs! Don't ask me why, but I guess they did it now because we never gave them our money. I can't wait, though I know It won't be long, yeah! yeah!
I'm so tired... I'll get back to bed.
Been a long time coming (Score:2)
400 Million? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess $400 Million US Pesos is a only a few hundred pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:400 Million? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who buys only one Beatles track? Let's say one person in ten buys music legally, and only half of those like the Beatles - one in twenty overall. If you like the Beatles, you'll download at the very least Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album. That's 57 tracks; you're looking at not far short of three tracks sold per capita.
The problem really is that the planet is saturated with Beatles music. Who in the world doesn't already have those albums on CD?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Beatles CDs don't sound too great anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:400 Million? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. The tracks will probably be a loss leader. The profit is going to come from two different places.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know my dad is. He lost most of his music collection in Katrina. He's been rebuying things as he wants to hear them from iTunes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the boomers really buying that much music online?
I know my dad is. He lost most of his music collection in Katrina. He's been rebuying things as he wants to hear them from iTunes.
There's a new invention that your dad should hear about. It's called a used CD store. You can find one in most every large town. They sell music in a non-DRM format, it's generally cheaper than iTunes if you want the whole album, and even better, the MAFIAA doesn't get a cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do have a few other places to sell it; there are 20+ stores worldwide and the Beatles do have worldwide appeal. Sure, it's still a lot of money, but there is a wider market than the US for it.
(then again, we aren't going to be privy to all the contract details, so there may be things we're not seeing that
If the remaster goes well, I'll buy 10 albums (Score:2)
I wish I knew where those were...
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware it made any difference?
The hold up? The owner of the Beatles' catalogue (Score:2)
While You're At It (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's evident that you have hundreds of hours of takes by The Beatles in your vaults. I know it takes time to master them but doesn't greed and insane fans willing to pile money at your feet dictate that you should continue with the releases of music similar to the Anthologies? I mean, you could distribute this stuff on iTunes or (preferably) Amazon too without ever having to do the physical packaging and I would probably have to buy it.
You seem to be greedy as all hell so I thought I'd throw that out there and hope you publish everything recorded by what is considered by many to be the greatest musical group to ever live.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as I'd love to hear the studio stuff, they'd have to have an eye on that sort of reuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Still a seeder left. Grab it while you can.
By the way, if you're really worried about hearing Beatles extra takes and the like, grab A/B Road. It'll keep you busy for YEARS. For the unaware: that's the complete, unedited tape reels from the Get Back sessions (which became Let It Be). 97 hours of studio sessions, with dialogue, warmups, rehearsals, and recorded takes, spliced together into the most continuous form possible by an anonymous bootl
Guess I have to buy the White Album again (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like I haven't paid for every Beatles song many times over at this point.
Re:Guess I have to buy the White Album again (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I don't know how good Purple Chick's transfers
Bloody hell (Score:3, Funny)
Publishing rights holder Sony/ATV seems to differ (Score:2)
Sony/ATV who owns most of the Beatles publishing licenses, says they haven't made any deal.
Re:Publishing rights holder Sony/ATV seems to diff (Score:2)
I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean by "buying it"? Considering that copyright exists for being an incentive to creation and I see the creators are either dead or have no living standard problems, I see that no further payment is necessary. This is how the system is supposed to work, right?
Also, I promise I didn't steal anything. That'd be an awfully wrong thing to do, to deprive someone of their hard earned property, not to mention someone might get hurt while someone is shoplifting a CD or breaking into the John Lennon archive...
Re:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp (Score:3, Insightful)
"The system" expects you to obey the law, not make it up as you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can freely download any music or video files, even if they are under copyright protection. This is legally allowed because of a blanket tax on empty CDs, DVDs, memory disks, etc. 10% of that tax revenue goes away for administration costs and 90% is distributed based on national sales figures plus some black magic.
I haven't bought a single empty CD or DVD in the past 6 years, but I'm sure the local linux users group and system administrators are really glad they are suppor
Re:I got all my Beatles music off of a private ftp (Score:4, Insightful)
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Note that this section of the act applies specifically to audio recordings, and specifically to 'an audio recording medium', but since audio can be recorded onto pretty much any digital medium, I doubt that that qualifier makes that much of a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how we do things here. (Score:2)
So if you are able to get buy on the wages you are making, you would turn down your next raise, right? Oh wait, we're not communists in this country, so people expect to be paid what they're worth, not what they need. This is America, it's from each according to his abilities to each according to his abilities in this country. If the music is worth a dollar to you, pay a dollar for it. If it's not, don't listen to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a raise means that the employer considers it a fair deal to give me that raise. It means the agreement is mutually agreeable. I don't expect rich copyright holders who game the system to stop wanting to preserve the copyright system (which is what your false analogy supposed), but I would expect society as a whole (being the other party to the copyright agreement), to negotiate a fair deal, which i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that's what they have. They agree to give us music and we agree to pay a dollar per song. It's fair because both parties agree to it. It would not be fair to say "no, you have to give me the music for free after you've made enough money", unless of course they agreed to it. Likewise it wound not be fair for them to say, "you have to give me a dollar". It's the fact that both sides a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I will not shoot you unless you give me all your money" is a
I have to be up in 5 hours, so I'm done here. (Score:3, Interesting)
All property is a government enforced monopoly. In this regard, IP is no different.
"create derivative works"
Copyright does not bar derivative works, though it does limit them. You may have noticed that it is extremely common in pop culture to reference or spoof other works which are still protected by copyright.
"a short copyright term would still allow the vast majority of profits to be made from a given copyrighted work"
Do you have any reason t
The Beatles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a real difference between ownership of the sound recording copyrights and the publishing rights. Besides, the publishing rights don't apply to Har
What was the name of the record company... (Score:2)
Wasn't it Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
And you're also wrong. It's "Apple Corps [wikipedia.org]".
Re: (Score:2)
Money talks. (Score:2)
How long until we see a shiny new Macbook and iPod as a special edition, complete with the familiar green logo?
Re: (Score:2)
My very thoughts. Beatles on vinyl is also interesting (and DRM free). As has been mentioned above, many have beat iTunes to this punch. I'm no big Beatles fan (slightly before my time) but the few I got from mp3.com were either vinyl rips or from the master tapes at 384kbps. Even $300Million probably won't bring that kind of quality to the consumer. (DRM free, but some nations are crying "foul".)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you'll recall, there was a pretty big lawsuit just a few short years ago over that original settlement. IIRC, Apple Computer ended up winning that one.
Michael Jackson & Sony Deny It (Score:5, Informative)
Sony/ATV is a pretty good source. While EMI Group owns the recording rights to the Beatles catalog, Sony and Jackson own the rights to the vast majority of the catalog's publishing rights. Had a deal been cut, Sony/ATV would "absolutely be informed," the Sony/ATV spokeswoman said.
I don't Care- The Beatles Were Before My Time (Score:2)
I was born in the early 60's so I really never had any mania over them. I wonder if this new Apple "Beatlemania" is part of the so called "musical cycle" where certain types of music go in and out of style in two or three decade intervals? Or their derivations follow the same cycles.
Re:I don't Care- The Beatles Were Before My Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I was born in '81 and didn't start listening to The Beatles until I was about 18. I almost immediately fell in love with the entire Beatles catalog (especially the later, less "poppy" stuff). Since then, I regularly listen to Beatles songs and include them in playlists. I'm not alone in being born outside of the Beatles era and still really enjoying the music. In fact, I'm probably in the majority. The Beatles are one of the only bands that I can play a song from in mixed crowd of mixed ages and have nobody complain.
So, yeah, this is actually a huge deal for Apple (well, both 'Apples' in this case I guess). It ought to take them a while to recoup their initial investment in this, but I definitely foresee it happening as I consider the music truly timeless and appealing to most.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can only "appreciate" music that was created in your lifetime? What a narrow focus your life must have.
Who cares? (Score:2)
sounds like a bad deal to me (Score:2)
I suspect it's just Steve Jobs' own fanboism of the Beatles that motivated this deal.
London Calling (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
wow (Score:2)
I still fail to see the value add over torrent--certainly at this pricepoint.
What if they never give them their money? (Score:2)
Re:The best things in life are free ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
bought it all on vinyl and then CD so chances are I won't pony up for the mp3
Re:$400 million sounds ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Oh God yes. $400 million is about £200 million, is £50 million per Beatle. McCartney's offered £25 million just to buy off Heather Mills in this divorce thing.
The Beatles were, are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, huge.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$400 million sounds ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) there might be some kind of term limit for this deal
2) I doubt AAPL keeps 100% of each download
3) I seriously doubt AAPL will have 100% of the market share for beatles music
4) Sir Paul and company have had very long careers and have made money from many other sources and have had plenty of time to invest their earnings in various investements.
We simply cannot make a comparison of net worth to revenues for A
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is this really a big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I became a Beatles fan in about 1993, aged 14. My parents weren't big fans, I just somehow got into them, and ended up with all their music, special edition and rare stuff, hundred of books, lots of memorabilia... and so on. While everyone around me was into Kylie Minogue and Take That, I loved the subversiveness of listening to a band who produced everything from crazy crappy pop (Love Me Do) to soulful ballads (This Boy) to psychedelic weirdness (Tom
Re:Is this really a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perspective. Recent music sells more because it's recent, but it will drop off, and in ten years nobody will buy it. The Beatles were huge, and even forty years removed, sells well... and will be selling well forty years from now. Ironically, If the Beatles weren't so valuble, they would have already been on I-Tunes. I have no doubt that Apple will make back that 400 million.
It's a bit like the gravitational attraction from the sun, compared to the gravitational attraction from the asteroid that's 100 meters away. The asteroid may, briefly, subject you to more force... but get a million miles away from both, and one's still pulling at you.
God, that's a strained analogy. Am I really going to submit this post?
Re:5 more years (Score:4, Interesting)
On the earliest recordings from 1962. It's going to take until another seven years for the bulk of the catalog to expire.
But let's also remember that there is a substantial amount of unreleased material sitting in the vaults, by all accounts hundreds of hours of alternate takes. That probably won't help with the early stuff (1962-1964), but by 1965 they were doing a lot of studio work, and that probably means all sorts of alternate instrumental and vocal takes. You can be damned sure that we're going to start seeing new versions of songs from Rubber Soul right on through Abbey Road. There are still a few unreleased songs that didn't appear on the Anthology series as well.
Now I may be wrong, but I'll wager if you pop out a new mix of I Am The Walrus or Dear Prudence with previously unreleased recordings, you're probably going to reset that clock. And, Let It Be Naked aside (which I understand didn't sell so well), this kind of stuff still sells quite well. Look at Love.
I don't think they would ever make the kind of money they made during the real heyday of successful Beatles released and re-releases during the 60s and 70s, but it's my understanding that Anthology alone refilled Harrison's and Starr's coffers, and even made Pete Best (whose drumming appears on a good part of the first Anthology set) a moderately wealthy man.
There's still gold in them thar hills. And that's not assuming that Parliament doesn't reverse itself and give has-beens like Cliff Richards a bazillion year extension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a movie called Across The Universe featuring re-recorded Beatles tunes just came out a year ago and did well in the theatres with a new generation of fans.
Beatles music hasn't stop selling. From new fans just discovering them as they grow up to Baby Boomers who are just discovering things like iTunes, there are sales to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was music mutually exclusive? If I throw the Beatles in my iTunes library will they eat everyone else? Zombie John Lennon will eat all my hip anti-mainstream crap? Might not be a bad thing, judging from the shear amount of bad small acts out there. A lot of small bands are small for a damn good reason, and it probably isn't because of Zombie John Lennon.
I'm getting really sick of the anti-mainstream hipsters. Great, your rebelious, you don't like the mainstream. G
Dismissed, not denied. (Score:2)