Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Music The Almighty Buck Apple

The Beatles On iTunes 551

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the help-i-need-some-money dept.
Yesterday Apple put a big old teaser up on their homepage for an unknown announcement to occur today. Speculation ran rampant from the delayed iOS 4.2, to iTunes Streaming to a release of the Beatles catalog on the iTunes store. Well, it was the latter. They have 13 albums on the store now, and a $150 box set. So here's hoping that we get that iPad multitasking yet this November.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Beatles On iTunes

Comments Filter:
  • White Album (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:12AM (#34242012) Journal

    Oh, so now I've got to buy the White Album *again*?

    • by ledow (319597)

      Damn - beat me to it.

    • Are they some new Boy band? Sorry if I'm out of the loop, Since I got to college I haven't had time for pop music since way before Cold Play hit the scene. $150 seems like a lot for such a new band, how much music could there be?

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:58AM (#34242698) Homepage Journal

      Back in the USSR, the White Album buys YOU!

  • Big (Score:2, Interesting)

    by inpher (1788434)
    This is big, at least for Steve Jobs and Apple. Steve is a huge Beatles fan and the distinction between Apple and Steve Jobs is blurry at best.
    • Isn't this the first time that the Beatles' catalog will be offered online? Legally of course.
      • You've been able to buy the digital music online for a long time.
        • I can't find any original Beatles on Amazon and I don't have the Zune software. You can get covers though on Amazon.
    • Sosumi (Score:5, Interesting)

      by slim (1652) <john@ha[ ]up.net ['rtn' in gap]> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:18AM (#34242086) Homepage

      And yet there's the trademark dispute over the Apple brand, the Beatles owning Apple Corps, and Jobs having Apple Computer.

      When new sounds for System 7 were created, the sounds were reviewed through Apple's legal department and they objected that the new system sound alert "chime" had a name that was "too musical", under the recent settlement. The creator of the new sound alerts for System 7 and the Macintosh Startup Sound, Jim Reekes, had grown frustrated with the legal scrutiny and first quipped it should be named "Let It Beep", a pun on The Beatles' "Let It Be". When someone remarked that that wouldn't pass legal's approval, he remarked "so sue me." After a brief reflection, he resubmitted the sound's name as sosumi (a homophone of "so sue me"), telling the legal department that the name was Japanese and had nothing to do with music.

  • If you don't already own every Beatles album, I feel sorry for you.
    • by Raumkraut (518382) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:20AM (#34242108)

      Meh. The Beatles are overrated.

      • by slim (1652) <john@ha[ ]up.net ['rtn' in gap]> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:25AM (#34242192) Homepage

        Meh. The Beatles are overrated.

        I tend to agree, but only because they are so very, very, unquestioningly highly rated by so many.

        It's also easy to dismiss them, as an overreaction to the adulation. Your post underrates them.

        A few hours with Beatles Rock Band (which is a great motivator for attentive listening) will remind you that they *were* very good indeed.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          A few hours with Beatles Rock Band

          And this is the extent of your musical knowledge, no wonder you like the Beatles.

          I find their music uninteresting and the hype annoying.

          • by slim (1652) <john@ha[ ]up.net ['rtn' in gap]> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:51AM (#34242586) Homepage

            A few hours with Beatles Rock Band

            And this is the extent of your musical knowledge, no wonder you like the Beatles.

            I find their music uninteresting and the hype annoying.

            I do play real guitar - among other instruments - and take pleasure in more complex forms than The Beatles, as well as in more minimal and direct music.

            However I'll continue to defend Guitar Hero / Rock Band as a tool for music appreciation. It draws your attention to details of the parts that are easy to overlook. It's a good way to actually concentrate on music -- few people nowadays listen to music and give it their full attention.

            I find it a bit strange that you could find the whole Beatles canon uninteresting. There's a hell of a lot of variety in there: She Loves You, Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, I am the Walrus, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Helter Skelter, I Got A Feeling ... all very different from one another.

          • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @12:16PM (#34243028) Homepage Journal

            I find their music uninteresting and the hype annoying.

            That's because you're too young to be able to see what an effect the Beatles had on music and indeed, society (actually, societies) in general.

            When you've heard something all your life, it's commonplace.

            • by pitchpipe (708843) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @12:25PM (#34243198)

              That's because you're too young to be able to see what an effect the Beatles had on music and indeed, society (actually, societies) in general.

              Yeah. Now get the fuck off his lawn!

            • by imakemusic (1164993) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:39PM (#34244438)

              Be that that as it may, and maybe I'm A Loser, I just don't Dig It. I Don't Want To Spoil The Party but I Want To Tell You, From Me To You, how I feel. You'd have to be a Madman to deny their impact and they certainly caused something of a Revolution but I've listened to them, Not A Second Time, but a hundredth time, and I'm So Tired of their sound I'm Gonna Sit Right Down And Cry. Maybe When I Get Home I'll have another listen and I'll Get Back to liking them. From A Beginning to The End they certainly wrote a lot of songs but that was a Long, Long, Long time ago. But We Can Work It Out. Everyone has their own tastes. You just have to Think For Yourself and Let It Be. The Things We Said Today may not be true in a few years. I could be wrong but, hey, That'll Be The Day!

              Anyway, I'll Be On My Way.

        • by delinear (991444)
          I'm not a huge Beatles fan but I'm very tempted to get Beatles Rock Band for Day Tripper alone. I guess the thing with the Beatles is, while you might not like every song they did (although some people clearly do), they had a hell of a lot of variety in their catalogue so there's pretty much something for everyone.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Not overrated, but played to death and embraced by mainstream society to the point that any rock-and-roll rebellion aspect is gone.

        • by paiute (550198) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:32AM (#34242292)

          I liked many of their songs the first 200,000 times I heard them.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:35AM (#34242342)

        To be fair, no band could live up to the hype the Beatles get. Not even the Kinks.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ProppaT (557551)

        Agreed. I think the Beatles inspiration at the time is worth a hell of a lot more than their music.

        * - Paul pushed Badfinger and basically kick starting the Power Pop genre
        * - Lennon inspired Harry Nilsson to release some absolutely classic albums
        * - They acted as a think tank for George Harrison. George Harrison's All Things Must Pass is worth more than the collective whole of the Beatles catalog, imo
        * - Basically caused Brian Wilson to go nuts. We wouldn't have Pet Sounds or Smile without the Beatles.
        *

        • Don't forget Chuck Manson. Their works helped to spawn the Manson family. Helter Skelter and all that.
      • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @12:16PM (#34243040)

        I won't disagree with you, but only because they are overrated in the same way that Tolkien is overrated. That is, if you look at him compared to contemporary sources, he appears unimaginative, derivative, and even predictable. And then you take a big step back and you suddenly realize that there was nothing before it to be a derivative of. The started something new, something that took on a life of it's own, and they were so iconic that you can still hear their sounds in music today, 50 years later.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Every note the Beatles played isn't sacred. They were a good band. Some of their music still holds up well. But they're not Gods. Most of their stuff is pretty forgetable. Your music taste isn't any better than the next guys except for in your own mind. Get over yourself.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BitZtream (692029)

      Why, because we didn't buy into their self absorbed crying about how their 'art' should be sold.

      They aren't that good, seriously. When people and companies think they are so special that they will not allow you to buy something in an alternate form when there is massive demand because they are greedy self entitled fucks ... you should probably shop elsewhere so they get the point. Of course its too late for that, so instead you're just going to keep getting ripped off by paying $130 for a boxed set that c

      • by CrashNBrn (1143981) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @02:04PM (#34244826)
        $150 for 40 year old music as degraded-format MP3's is totally worth it. (Abbey Road was released in 1970). Soon it will be super-classic (50 years old) and the Distributors will want $300.00

        The fact that the laws allow corporate renumeration still for 40-year-old tunes is almost warrant enough to disregard copyright. We'll likely see it on blueray and the next format and the next. As is it's already seen 7 format releases: Album (78/45/33), 8-Track, Tape, CD, Album (vinyl-again), Rock-Band, MP3s

        There are many bands who have excessive catalogs of music - that I just can't be bothered to wade thru. Any band that's survived 20 years has had their label push numerous "Best of" compilations. The same songs will appear again and again, yet each time there will be one or two new tracks.

        Perhaps it's just me but considering all that, older CDs/Music are valued (by the owners/distributors) far too highly. If there were offers of "Buy this (new) Album get 1/2/3 previous albums for free, I would think many people including myself would purchase a lot more music.

        I certainly can't afford to buy all the music I would want, so instead I buy a handful of albums a year.
    • by vlm (69642) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:26AM (#34242206)

      If you don't already own every Beatles album, I feel sorry for you.

      Does borrowing your grandfathers copies count? They are interesting, but with the cultural reference points being half a century ago, they are kind of hard to relate to like the kids half a century related to them. One of those "you had to be there" moments.

      • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:27AM (#34242224)

        That's not really true, though. Every generation has its superstars.

        The Beatles are just your grandpa's Justin Bieber.

      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        Indeed. I don't begrudge anyone their musical tastes, and there are some older songs (I wouldn't go as far as older "bands", but a few songs sure) that I do like, but as someone who grew up afterwards, I just don't "get it".

        They're just an old band. I like Lennon's solo "Imagine", but beyond that I can't think of a single song they've involved with that I actually like.

        Music, like so many things, is subjective, and largely generational, and their day has pretty much passed. My parents always find those o

      • by Kenshin (43036)

        "They are interesting, but with the cultural reference points being half a century ago, they are kind of hard to relate to like the kids half a century related to them."

        There aren't all that many cultural reference points in Beatles songs. The lyrics are pretty-much timeless. That's part of how they managed to stay so popular.

        It's sorta like Pixar.

        • by vlm (69642)

          There aren't all that many cultural reference points in Beatles songs. The lyrics are pretty-much timeless. That's part of how they managed to stay so popular. It's sorta like Pixar.

          The fish can't see the ocean it swims in?

          Started out singing folk rock love songs about chicks, end up doing hippie psychedelic tunes? Not having been there myself, this is pretty much how I've had both the 60s and the Beatles described to me. The influence on people living then must have been tremendous, but as a guy born a decade or two knowing how it all turns out is going to be a much different experience.

          The pixar reference is hilarious, given that fish swims in the water of day care / heros marginal

    • by mspohr (589790)
      I already have MP3s of most of the Beatles. Am I supposed to get excited about this?
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:17AM (#34242072)

    In a way, Apple and The Beatles are very similar. Both were pioneers in their industries. Both had throngs of loyal fans willing to do anything for them. Both are scarcely more than a thin veneer over the status quo.

    It's a bit poetic that these two entities which have been at each other's throats over who has the right to call themselves a fruit now are hand in hand making money off the panting masses.

    Apple's done it again.

    • by mevets (322601)

      There is a market for John Brauer designed wastebaskets, which may not be any better at holding waste than a cardboard box lined with wax paper.

      Sipping shade grown free trade coffee while listening to the Beatles on your i-thing is a straw man. Toss it in your wax-paper lined cardboard box.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:41AM (#34242434)

      >Both are scarcely more than a thin veneer over the status quo.

      Oh, I wouldn't say that about the Beatles. If you look at the Beatles peers when they were active you'll see that they weren't just "white plastic on OEM crap." Lets skip past their early stuff which is admittingly cookie cutter to Rubber Soul's release in 1965. The Billboard top 100 had acts like Sonny and Cher and songs like "Wooley Bully." Or when the Beatles released Revolver in 1966, the charts were leading with stuff like the Mamas and Papas. Sgt Peppers was released in 1967 when the Billboards top song was stuff like I'm A Believer by the Monkees. Its weird to even think of them as competing peers considering how far and away Sgt Peppers is from anything mainstream release.

      I think the Beatles really earned their reputation as game changers. They're one of the first rock bands to really begin exploring outside the mainstream, challenge the status quo, and succeeding at this without alienating listeners. Its odd to think that by 1969 they were pretty much done, but if you listen to a lot of the music from the 1970s you'll hear quite a bit of Beatles influence. I think they really wrote the template on how to make rock music that isn't just disposable catchy hits and could be something closer to fine art than just music to dance/get high/get laid to.

  • Cheaper to buy CDs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordKronos (470910) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:17AM (#34242074) Homepage

    Meanwhile, the CD box set is selling for $130 on amazon (and I thought I read recently someone was offering it for around $100). I thought downloads were supposed to be cheaper than the physical CDs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SicariusMan (412699)

      I don't know about the CD set, but the iTunes version has the iTunes LP extras including two of their original concerts. I'm not a Beatles guy at all, as I'm under 35, but I do respect the influence they've had on music.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:25AM (#34242194)
      Downloads are really supposed to be more convenient than CDs. Brick and mortar stores do not have 24/7 hours. Online CD stores will take at least a day to ship. There is no worry about supply limits. And you can get the songs you want rather than the whole album. With a large number of albums like the box set, you don't have to spend any time ripping and encoding to your computer. Truthfully downloads are cheaper to manufacture than CDs. However markup is always affected by demand and consumer willingness to pay for convenience. I myself get CDs whenever possible but I usually get them used.
      • by melikamp (631205)

        There is no worry about supply limits.

        I don't think the rent seekers... Ugm, the rights holders got that memo. They seem to be dangerously preoccupied with supply limits of digital media: how there ain't any.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      $150 in iTunes US, and 149€ in iTunes France for the CD Box Set?

      Damn you Apple and your currency rate! $1 != 1€, and the music files are the same all around the planet.

    • Meanwhile, the CD box set is selling for $130 on amazon (and I thought I read recently someone was offering it for around $100). I thought downloads were supposed to be cheaper than the physical CDs.

      SUre you could get the box set and then rip them with a free ripper. Or you could pay a team of professional sound engineers $20 to work for months getting the perfect rip for you.

    • by melikamp (631205)
      They are. There is a flac discography blob floating around, a remastered 2009 version. The best part, everything you pay for it ($0) goes directly to John Lennon.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)

      I thought downloads were supposed to be cheaper than the physical CDs

      Clearly you are new to the iTunes store.

    • A decent new turntable with a built-in preamp is only $80. Assuming you already have speakers somewhere, you can head down to your local record store and pick up some Beatles reprints at $10 a pop. It won't give you their whole catalog for under $150, but it will give you the best albums and better sound.

      If you like classic rock, you haven't heard it until you've spun it on vinyl. For music produced after 1995 it's usually useless, since it was cut digitally.

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BitZtream (692029) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:22AM (#34242142)

    Perhaps I just don't like the Beatles enough to think this is a good thing ... but ...

    My solution to bands who 'refuse' to be put on iTunes, for any reason?

    I don't buy their shit. I won't buy anything from the Beatles or Metallica ever again for that reason, even if they change their minds later.

    You guys go cater to their self absorbed temper tantrums and sense of entitlement. I'll pass and buy things from people who actually appreciate my money.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demonbug (309515) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:10PM (#34243934) Journal

      Perhaps I just don't like the Beatles enough to think this is a good thing ... but ...

      My solution to bands who 'refuse' to be put on iTunes, for any reason?

      I don't buy their shit. I won't buy anything from the Beatles or Metallica ever again for that reason, even if they change their minds later.

      You guys go cater to their self absorbed temper tantrums and sense of entitlement. I'll pass and buy things from people who actually appreciate my money.

      My solution to people having tantrums because some person (or group) isn't doing what they think they should do is to laugh at them.

      Seriously, do you have any idea how childish you sound? Somebody doesn't sell their stuff the way you think they should so you accuse them of having a tantrum? Talk about self absorbed...

      I can't stand it when people get all pissy about an artist not wanting to break apart their album into individual chunks. I don't care what the artist's reason for this is, if it is valid concern for the artistic integrity of their work (I can see this for the later Beatles albums, though definitely not the early ones) or if they just think that they can make the most bucks off it that way; whining because they won't give it to you the way you demand it is just pathetic. They don't owe you anything. They created it, it is theirs to do with as they see fit - the only ones exhibiting a ridiculous sense of entitlement are the ones demanding that artists offer their work in a specific way because those artists somehow owe it to the consumer. Stunning hypocrisy and failure to think.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SydShamino (547793) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @01:19PM (#34244064)

      The actual Beatles - Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr - have nothing against iTunes. McCartney's music has been available there for quite some time.

      They lost control over their own music long ago. So you can avoid giving any money to the owners of the Beatles catalog, sure, but your rant about the artists' "self absorbed temper tantrums and sense of entitlement" is unwarranted.

  • by Lev13than (581686) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:23AM (#34242156) Homepage

    O frabjous day!

    The Beatles are on iTunes! Truly this is a day that we "will never forget [slashgear.com]".

    Move over 7/25/2006 (remember - the day that Metallica finally joined the fold?), because 11/16/2010 is the new biggest day in the history of music. Ever.
     
    Remember folks, your task for this morning is to delete the 100-200 Beatles songs in your iTunes folder so that you can download the exact same files from Apple.

  • Why would anyone give iTunes and Apple and the Beatles for that matter any more money?

    I have already owned these as albums, tapes and CDs and I am NOT buying them again.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MouseR (3264)

      Who says you have to? Do you feel pressured when a car company announces the current year`s model?

      How about the autumn release of Levis jeans?

      Heck... that pint of milk is dépassé by now. RUSH NOW to buy this week`s release!! ... or just realize you made a short-sighted comment and move on.

    • by delinear (991444) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @12:04PM (#34242800)
      Besides, they broke up 40 years ago, most of this stuff was recorded before a lot of the people posting here were even born. This is the kind of stuff that should be in the public domain, if we didn't have ridiculous copyright periods that perpetuate the right to make money from the same content ad infinitum. People who rush out to buy this stuff again just give ammo to the labels demanding ever longer copyrights.
  • *Sigh*... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:27AM (#34242218) Homepage

    It's a testament to baby boomer narcissism that this is such a BFD from Apple.

    Big new software update? No. Verizon iPhone? No. ZOMG U CAN HAZ BEETULZ ON TEH iPhone NOW!

    If Disney opened up its vault, that'd at least make sense since they stop publishing a lot of their animated classics for long periods of time.

    • Jobs' Narcissism (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:37AM (#34242382) Homepage Journal

      Actually, this announcement's hype is testament to Steve Jobs' narcissism, and whatever is the corporate version of "narcissism" (monopolism?) over at Apple Records. Apple Records has been suing and attacking Apple Computer since the Apple ][, claiming "trademark" rights that don't exist (computers aren't music, even when computers play or sell music). "Beatles on iTunes" closes the "Apple vs Apple" spat that has kept Beatles music from Apple users for so long, even when it there was no possible combo. Which is probably a lot bigger deal to Jobs and Apple Records than it is to the public, even if Apple's music distribution is #1 and the Beatles recordings are still among the most popular music in the world.

      Because Steve Jobs is a Baby Boomer whose narcissism crossed with Apple Records' narcissism is bigger than even the narcissism of the entire rest of the "Me Generation".

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        It's a bit more subtle than that. The legal Apple vs Apple thing was resolve a while back, when Apple Computer Inc. bought the trademark outright and became Apple Inc. By this stage, Apple Records had sold all of the rights to anything Beatles related and so were irrelevant.

        Apple Computer was originally named in part as an homage to Apple Corps because Steve Jobs was (and still is, apparently) a Beatles fan. He was somewhat put out when they saw this as trademark infringement rather than a compliment[1]

    • by loutr (626763)

      ZOMG U CAN HAZ BEETULZ ON TEH iPhone NOW!

      No, you can now *buy* the Beatles on teh iPhone. You could get them on the device from day 1, provided you had ripped your Beatles CDs or illegally dowloaded the mp3s.

  • Wait... (Score:2, Funny)

    by orphiuchus (1146483)
    Doesn't like half the money go to Michael Jackson's ghost or something? I guess its not a bad thing, hes going to need good heaven-lawyers to get out of the charges of molesting the Lindbergh baby.
  • Lame non-news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by airfoobar (1853132) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:33AM (#34242314)
    This is only news because the rights holders have been unable to make a rational business decision for such a long time, while the fans have been forced to cater to their own needs. It's much more interesting to know that the Beatles recordings will start entering the public domain in 2012.
  • by CHK6 (583097) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:50AM (#34242566)
    I understand Steve Job's labor of love to sell Beatles songs on iTunes is some crown jewel and huge news for Apple. But I find it much much more exciting that the Quick-Mart gas station on the corner fixed it's slushee machine.
  • by Myopic (18616) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @11:52AM (#34242592)

    Yay! Wow, the Beatles are finally available on iTunes! Thank goodness, because nobody has ever been able to listen to Beatles music on their computers. Their refusal to sell their music in one specific outlet has completely prevented all computer users from enjoying MP3 recordings of Beatles songs. Finally, a Beatles song will appear on an iPod for the first time. Finally!

He who is content with his lot probably has a lot.

Working...