Slashdot Mirror
Beatles and iTunes At Last?
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.'"
What's yellow and lives on dead beatles?
Yoko Ono.
Really does apply to this context.
Guess that means i'll have to buy the white album again
You know, it's been a long and winding road, etc, etc, etc.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Now who's the last hold out? Led Z?
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Uuuuuuuh 400 Million for a body of works that's set begin expiring in 2013?
I guess $400 Million US Pesos is a only a few hundred pounds.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Jobs finally got him to say, "ooo hoo" and sign on the dotted line. Reality Distortion Field meets Thriller!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Uh, while you're at it, could you re-release their their Christmas Albums on something that's not flexi-disc? You know, so I don't have to pay some bootlegger for a piece of crap copy? I have one track from that legally off of the Free As A Bird (track 04) single.
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.
My work here is dung.
Are they really worth that much?
I mean, come on.
Although there's been a new interest in them with American Idol finally allowed to do Beatles.
Why did Apple (the inventors of Music) have to pay?
I would think that any one that really wanted the beatles would already have them on their IPOD by now, probably ripped from their own cd's or from the internet. I don't really see that much of a demand for them now, when was the last record they even made anyway, I doubt that I was even born yet, and I'm now 26. Yes I understand that they were hugh at one point, but I don't really see anyone that would buy their stuff that doesn't have it already. I don't know but that's just my humble opinion, please don't flame me if I'm wrong.
And I want these over the remeastered flacs I got off the net why exactly?
It's not like I haven't paid for every Beatles song many times over at this point.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Steve Jobs must've promised to give every future Macworld keynote dressed as Ringo Starr or something, knowing how belligerent Apple Corps are.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9890124-7.html?
Sony/ATV who owns most of the Beatles publishing licenses, says they haven't made any deal.
So I find myself wondering if the beatles have grossed $400 million in total for their music since it was written. I'm sure it's possible but would like to know for sure. Anyone?
I also find myself wondering if AAPL expects to make all that money back before the entire beatles catalog enters the public domain. Of if the beatles catalog will ever enter the public domain.
Lastly, I find myself wondering if Jacko can avoid foreclosure on Neverland ranch with his piece of the pie.
(*sarcastic-tone-of-voice*)
Yup, iTunes is totally homosexual.
(*end-voice-modifier*)
At least present yourself with some supporting points why you think this. Do you find the overall GUI to be feminine? Is it too fashionable and works too well with the fashionable iPod? What is it?
-----------------------
On another note, I think this is going to be great for Apple and iPod owners everywhere.
And lastly, some interesting facts about the Beatles:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/movies-music-books/56135-some-strange-mundane-facts-about.html
My work here is dung.
...and I'm damn proud of it. It's in 320kbit mp3 format, the quality is superb, idv3 tags are correct and the download speed was fast.
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...
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I am not up to date on most current events, but didn't the Beatles cease to exist several decades ago? John and George are dead, Paul's memory is almost full, and I am pretty sure Ringo never actually existed. Maybe, when they say 'The Beatles made a deal' they really mean 'the people who own the rights to the Beatles music made a deal'.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
or is it going to be available on things like Amazon, and rhapsody? If not, that a major coup for Apple.
To be fair the Beatles music was great....50 years ago when it first came out.
To think that anyone who wants to listen to them doesn't have their discography is kind of mind boggling. Unless they hope to get money from those that don't know how to rip CDs, you know what I mean, paying twice for the same product and all.
~ Ron Fitzgerald
...for someone to hack iTunes and get this stuff out on the black market.
And no! I am not doing it. It's illegal, so don't ask. Sheeeesh!
Take your mod and shove it!
No need to expend the powers of the RDF on that old white lady... MJ just needed the cash, *BADLY*.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Wasn't it Apple?
In 2013 the sound recording copyrights expire..
Then there will be a total legal snafu.
The copyright on the score, etc, will not expire for another 100 years.. Assuming McCartney dies soon.
Of course, if you believe McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike, then I guess the clock started in 1980.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Yeah, right - so much for "You keep out of the music business, and we won't sell computers".
How long until we see a shiny new Macbook and iPod as a special edition, complete with the familiar green logo?
"The system" expects you to obey the law, not make it up as you go.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I totally did not claim that records were inferior - I said they were restrictive. I listened to Abbey Road last night on vinyl :) I was drawing a comparison that if you wanted to buy the Beatles catalog *again* - why do it with DRM'd AAC? Go vinyl.
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. So, somebody's probably not telling the truth here. We're probably being toyed with. In the Name of all that is Noodley and Good, I hate greed.
My work here is dung.
I never really liked the Beatles because I just wasn't old enough to appreciate much of any music at the time. So Apple can spend a billion as far as I care.
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.
thats a bit of an oxymoron, considering that all great musicians wrote great music during drug addiction phases. -Bill Hicks:See I think, drugs have some done good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us. Do me a favor, go home tonight, take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your CDs, and burn them. 'Cause you know what? The musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Reeeeeeeal fucking high on drugs.-
If you want the Beatles on your iPod, rip the CDs and transfer. Bingo - Beatlemania hit my iTunes/iPod years ago. Best of all, most of the CDs I bought were obtained at used CD stores for just a few dollars each. Score! $400 Million, Apple? You guys got ripped off. I will only be impressed if they are released on iTunes as a complete digital box set in Apple Lossless without DRM.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I guess Apple paid the record company and not the other way around.
Hasn't McCartney and his companions made enough money on this old music already?
Who said I didn't obey the law?
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 supporting the one hit wonder of the day with their or their companies funds. So yeah, the system is fucked and the still living Beatles members will never see a penny from the blanket tax that allows me to legally download their music for free, but then again if this action would be illegal I'd still do it.
I will break any and all laws that satisfy my little formulae with some added weights: (how strong I feel about the issue)*(my moral status on the issue) - (risk of punishment)*(severity of punishment) >= 0.
If a given action is legal and I'm morally okay about it, I'll do it. If it is illegal, it depends on how much I'm willing to sacrifice for the cause. Not all laws should be followed and there are laws that are just morally wrong. I use my own judgement primarily and I do not follow the law without thinking. That leads to facism.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
What about the option of buying a custom beatles IPOD that lets everyone around me know that I'm listening to the beatles? I want everyone near me to think I'm hip and cool just like in the commercials. I'm thinking maybe off the wall color ear buds or maybe a custom faceplate with a picture of the band. Whoops, sorry I forgot that I stopped listening to the beatles years ago.
Damn...
I thought that, "phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust".
Crap, now I have to listen to them all over again, in stores (not legal, but "everyone" small does it), in public, everywhere, aaarrrggghhh.
And the fashion world will take heed, and design clothing, and "asscessories" for the mass to consume.
Yum! Buuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!
And I even liked The Beatles music, but there are worlds of unheard music "out there" that goes unlistened to, because people are afraid to listen to something thats not "familiar" to them.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
DRM'd AAC/WMV has the same analog loophole, nothing new, and not exactly convenient. I also have my record player hooked up to my soundcard FWIW.
"have no living standard problems"
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.
And you think Michael Jackson is going to turn away apple's money ?
Neither does Apple Corp, John, Paul, George, or Ringo. (Yeah, two don't eat anything anymore... one eats too much.)
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Apple is now apparently denying that there is a done deal for the Beatles' catalog.
"'This is not news nor is it a scoop,' says an Apple Inc. spokesman, declining further comment."
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003722487
So Apple paid the Beatles 400 mil just for the privilege of having their catalog on iTunes ? I don't get it... I know retail, and this doesn't make sense to me.
Does this mean they won't be paying per-song royalties to the artist ? Even then, Apple would need to sell quite a bit more than 400 million songs to recoup their investment. I sure as hell don't charge vendors for the "privilege" of selling my product, I sell them the actual product and they mark it up, or from the reverse perspective the vendor sells my product for a set price and I get a piece of that action.
I realize this is the music industry, where everything is crooked, but where's the logic ? Where's the business justification for this sort of thing ? iTunes was fine without the Beatles, it's not like the addition of that catalog is going to add much value to the service. Everyone who ever cared about that band already owns multiple copies of their favorites, on vinyl, tape and CD.
It's been almost 40 years since the Beatles disbanded, die already!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Unless the Beatles are the ones paying the $400m. I fail to see how Apple can come out on top with this kind of deal. Selling 400 million Beatles songs won't even allow them to break even (remember they don't keep much of that 99 cents plus they have lots of operating costs).
I suspect it's just Steve Jobs' own fanboism of the Beatles that motivated this deal.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And here I thought phony Beatlemania had bitten the dust...
So The Beatles catalog is maybe coming to iTunes, and that is a story? Even if it were a lock, is there any one band that's worth a story in this scenario?
Yeah, but records are restrictive in the fact that you can't just push a button to skip tracks.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
By the time the Beatles' catalogue makes it to iTunes, they will have broken up.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
This is a story of what's wrong with the current methods of music distribution.
Though they'll never be worth as much to me as the singles we'd go buy at the 5 and 10 every week or so.
I wish I knew where those were...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Yeah, but records are restrictive in the fact that you can't just push a button to skip tracks.
Not true. My linear turntable senses track gaps -- you can push buttons to jump to a particular track, or to skip a track.
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. Subsection 2 disclaims this privilege for renting, selling, or performing, as well as distribution. Thus, it is legal to make a copy of a friend's CD for your personal use, but not legal for your friend to make a copy of his CD for your personal use. Opinion has varied, but the general consensus (including that of the courts, IIRC) is that internet filesharing involves the recipient making the copy, which thus falls under subsection 1 but is not excluded by subsection 2.
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.
Now I have the opportunity to buy, at exhorbitant prices, digital versions of all the same Beatles album which I own (all of them).
I still fail to see the value add over torrent--certainly at this pricepoint.
expandfairuse.org
Hopefully, in the middle of negotiations, they won't break down. ;)
No, I wasn't citing the Canadian Copyright Act, blank media tax/levy exists in a few other countries aswell other than Canada.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Read http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp
In short, MJ owns *half* of the *PUBLISHING* rights to the songs.
It can be true without being either "news" or "a scoop" in Apple's eyes. Apple may just consider it to be a normal artist debut on iTunes, something that, in Apple's eyes, happens several times a day.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
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.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Let's not forget the "re-mix" albums Let It Be....Naked, and Love, both of which were released to much acclaim (with many, including McCartney himself preferring the new version over the original).
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.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
You do realize that the Beatles 1 CD came out in 2000, and was a huge seller, right?
I didn't get it, since I already own all of the CDs.. but there are lots of people still buying the Beatles.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can always hit the table to skip a track, maybe.
Beatles = EMI = iTunes Plus = No DRM
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Can someone sciency that hasn't spent thousands on a sound system to play vinyl tell me if theres any truth to this "warm" idea or if its just a subjective placebo myth? Granted i don't have much understanding but as far as i can tell the only way this could be is if the warmness came from imperfecitons and errors in the playback process...
If there is what is the nature of this warmness?
So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
Absolutely, dead solid, perfectly correct.
I own many excellent discs of vinyl that are mostly worshiped at a distance, including most of the Beatles discography. Nothing rare or cool in the Beatles stuff as I'm not a huge fan. I like a lot of their music, but I have quite a few artists above them in my favorite list. That said, most music sounds "warmer" or "fuller" on vinyl than CD; people have opinions for and against, but my ears shape my opinion and I'll go with that.
Had an interesting experience just today.
I play bass in a band made up of 45 y/o and older professionals who happen to play some mean licks when the sun goes down. We've gotten good enough to sign with a talent agency and needed a CD of material for the artist web page links, demos, and so on. I also record practices and burn MP3s for solo practice by the group since the day job intrudes on band time. My "rig" is an old Technics cassette deck with dbx noise reduction. With metal tape, I get a really clean recording. My "input stage" is 2 $24 Radio Shack SM-58 clone microphones, hanging from plant hooks in the ceiling. This is in a 22 x 40 upstairs game room I've turned into a studio. I record 3 guitars, 2 keyboards, a full drum kit (pushed to the far end of the room), and 5 vocals onto Maxell tape, on that old deck, using "Mr. Microphones", play it back into an XP PC and rip to MP3 with Audacity. Using the built-in RealTek audio on a $70 motherboard.
So, there's the setup. I have CDs with MP3s produced in a studio with the latest and greatest digital toys and CDs I built with the toy setup described above. A guy at work, who plays in another band, heard a new tune I had run from tape today and asked "how long did it take at the studio to do that one?" When I told it him it was recorded live on the Jurassic rig, he was surprised.
The belabored point here is that old analog, dinosaur stuff can and does work quite well and can STILL produce very listenable results.
I am my own gestalt.
You're proud of downloading music? I pity you. I can only imagine the emptiness of existence that leads to taking pride in such a mundane and ridiculous thing.
Every time I hear "warm sound" when describing records I want to hit someone...
Please please please quantify "warm sound" in respect to some hard metric. Is it frequency response at certain levels? Dynamic range? Why don't you just activate your "warm sound" filter on your CD player and get the same result?
If there is what is the nature of this warmness?
Distortion. A digital recording is an absolutely perfect reproduction of the input signal, clean and pure. But vinyl recordings (and tube amplifiers, for that matter) introduce subtle distortion. Some people like the effect of the distortion, which is okay... but then they start to convince themselves that it's truer to the source. But it's simply not.
That's if people are being reasonably honest. It's also true that there is a gigantic amount of placebo effects. Do a Google search for "danceable cables" if you want to be really amused.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I love the Beatles, but this is just madness. These are forty year old song recordings. If you want them, then just go to the library, check out the CDs, and copy them, for Christ's sake.
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!
So basically you don't care if it's legal or illegal, you admit the system is wrong, you don't mind forcing other people to subsidize your non-purchase of music, and laws are okay to break as long as your own moral standards and feelings aren't affected.
Sounds like selfishness to me.
I mean, gosh, at least go out and buy a CD from a local band every once and awhile.
400 Million is nothing to Steve Jobs. Especially when he's forcing his computer company to spend it in order to validate his personal level of 'cool'. Believe me, he will just add $50 to the next Macintosh that he releases and all the Apple groupies will be so dazzled by the rounded corners and groovy glow-in-the-dark metallic plastic case that they won't care. And they, being the yuppie and oh-so-creative class of our society, will just start charging $100 an hour instead of $85 for the creative things that they do for their clients, who will just charge a little more to you.
... doing ... really ... cool... shit... with ...really ... cool and talented people (who buy Macs). Money only matters to the proles who use PCs (uck!).
So, yeah, as Steve says, the money doesn't matter when you're
"Copyright is not property, it is a license for a monopoly. "
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 to make this claim? It seems. . . unlikely to be true. In any case I believe a creator is entitled to the entirety of the profit, not a portion of it according you your determination.
"I will not shoot you unless you give me all your money"
You may be surprised to learn this, but threatening to murder someone is highly illegal. Refusing to give someone something for free is not. I think you are the one playing word games.
"the author should hand the work back to society where it came from"
This is the same kind of nonsense people are always spewing about rich or lucky people. You feel entitled to the fruits of their labor, so you play the victim. Oh, if it weren't for society, they never would have made their work, so they should have no say in how it is used. That is bullshit. It is their choice what they will do with what they've created, not yours. If you're so smart that you know what to do with it better than they do, then how come you didn't come up with the idea? It should be the creators choice, and if they choose to sell it, I see nothing wrong with that.
If people will pay for it, it is a net benefit society. You should be grateful for that, not greedily demanding that they give it to you for free.
Calling Hey Jude and Get Back "elevator music" is a bit of a stretch. Our culture is so infused with their music that we don't notice it anymore. It's sort of like the extent to which western lit is infused with the KJV and Shakespeare. It's so present that we don't even notice it. I'm not saying that every song is a masterpiece, but stuff like "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is edgy even today.
Do you think it's a coincidence that Paul McCartney and Heather Mills finish their divorce suit and then the beatles catalog gets sold for $400M dollars. "Yes your honour, that's a list of all my assets AT THE MOMENT".
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
I agree with Realty Master... there is a large placebo effect :0
The fact is there is a very subtle difference between the two. I have never heard anyone try to reproduce vinyl on digital equ. but there may be a difference! (Let's someone do that and we can have a bit more evidence in this debate.) Vinyl's sound is warmer. This is due in some part to a warm noise spectrum being generated by all record players (with or without tubes... tubes make it warmer). I understand that it is an almost inaudible "tv static" that "fills in" the missing bits. There was a very good article in Time (of all places!) that helped explain this phenomenon by use of a picture with missing parts. Fill it in with a similar static (i.e. a static that is within the range of the picture's values) and it becomes recognizable as a Van Gough self portrait.
Part human nature (brain sciency things), part placebo (I can hear all this, but not the difference between a 192 and 512 mp3), and part tech (light vs friction, digital vs analog, scratch vs scratch).
Actually, there are some bootlegs going around from someone called Dr. Ebbetts who took pristine vinyl pressings, ripped, and mastered them using state of the art equipment. They sound so much better than the official releases.
I'd just like to go on record here and say that as far as I am personally concerned the Beatles were over-hyped shit in the 60's and it shows just how far Jobs is up his own ass paying $400 million now just to have them on iTunes, like its some sort of coup that will add 'cool' to his own over-hyped little service. Jesus. Lennon was an idiot, and McCartney IS an idiot. Yellow Submarine, Lucy in the Sky with diamonds, Paperback-fucking-writer? Drivel. Mod me down, please, its worth it just to get that off my chest.
Yes, well Paul will be needing that extra 400m to cover his divorce settlement.
... prenuptual agreement
Paul, two words for you
Check out http://www.archive.org/ 's live music archive.
.torrent floating around.
*THAT'S* how you do it.
Anyway, anyone who wants their Beatles collection on their iPod has already ripped it, and/or grabbed it from a discography
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Says the UK's Guardian
If iTunes is homosexual, why don't they have AC/DC?
With all due repsect, what's all the fuss about? OK so they were the biggest thing ever when they first started out, they showed that a bunch of nobody's who practised hard, made the breaks themselves could become "bigger than Jebus", but other than another highlighted entry in rock's who's who, why all the fuss every time one of them farts, for cripes sake? No I'm not some 16 year old whipper snapper with no knowledge of where my music comes from, currently staring at the "underside" of 40 years old, even my old man at 68 can't see what the fuss is all about and he saw them in their heyday, bought their stuff first time around!
Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
There are no Beatles songs coming to iTunes or any other online format. McCartney does not control the Beatle's catalog - EMI does and there is no deal. The story is flat out wrong, based on a rumour that was floated in the British Tabloids.
Secondly, Beatle's music is great.
Michael Stipe can call the Beatle's elevator music as much as he wants to, but, REM hasn't made a good album since before that wretched "Monster" came out, and then, all of their songs on every album before that had the same sound. The Beatles, on the other hand, went through a pop phase, and then branched out with very limited technology to make albums where all the songs on them have a unique sound. Just listen to Revolver, and compare the likes of "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Taxman" with "Got to Get You Into My Life". You just don't see mainstream bands doing that these days.
I would love to hear the song that REM did that matches Eleanor Rigby, and that's a lyric that Paul wrote... let alone John.
This is my sig.
EMI holds the Beatles library and they have not agreed to anything with Apple at this time.
But can you skip to a track on the other side of the record?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The law is the law, you can't justify a crime because it felt alright to you.
With that, I reply with this. http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=vinyl&m=707096
Technics, and I think a few others, made linear record players with a crude track selection ability. Some were even programmable.
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
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 - it has to be remembered that none of them was musically literate enough to read or write music, and the only Beatle that arguably knew his way thoroughly around the fretboard was George, "the quiet Beatle". To fully appreciate this, try listening to the Beatles live and compare this with the recorded versions of the same songs. Some of the ancient modal (Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian) progressions heard on Beatles tracks like Eleanor Rigby are also never heard again on Lennon, McCartney or Harrison solo efforts, which leads one to strongly suspect that a lot of that input was beyond their musical understanding. Ravi Shankar and the "Maharishi" effect also enriched their repertoire, as did the likes of Billy Preston and several other session musicians who were rarely if ever credited (Billy Preston was credited for his work, although several others are still in litigation to this day). 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 (Western industries were booming with oil at 36 cents a barrel prior to the ruinous effect of the 7-Day War; although the phrase Yuppie hadn't been coined yet, there were a fair lot of them around as a result of the boom). As the reality of Geopolitics and the threat of Nuclear War, Civil Liberties and Middle-Eastern terrorism began to bite, a new Sound of Social Realism overtook the Beatles and Tamla Motown, and they rapidly became an irrelevance in spite of their best efforts to change with the times and drop out with the Hippie underground. This new wave was also led by more seasoned live performers and virtuosos like Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Santana, Sly and the Family Stone, Curtis Mayfield to name but a few of the galactic personas that emerged on the turbulent scene. That hasn't stopped the awesome statistic that for every minute of every day, a Beatles song is being played somewhere on a radio, TV or Internet station, which translates to a lot of good business for the publishers, rights-holders and now iTunes.
I get up, I get down...
>> As of today there is no time frame as to when the catalog will appear online
Why not just upload that torrent to the iTunes server?
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Some friends of mine in a band called Kultur Shock recorded and album with Jack Endino... THE Jack Endino! Responsible for recording early albums by The Melvins, Soundgarden, Mudhoney and a little band called Nirvana.
The album in question was all mastered digitally, but Jack is a tape freak and really dug into the guitar sounds by recording on 2" tape and then digitizing it. The whole production was a mix of recording straight into ProTools or recording to 2" and then digitizing. The album sounds great, especially the guitars.
Jack knew that mastering digitally was the way to go, but some of the instruments needed to be recorded in an analog format and some needed to be recorded digitally to get the best sound possible. This analog > digital argument is just crap. Use whatever format best suits the needs at hand.
Primus went all analog on the Brown Album and look how that turned out! They tried to record Zeppelin style and it sounded like crap. Couple of good tunes, but for the most part it was a speaker buster. Recording on "principle" is ridiculous. Recording by whatever method produces the best results is the way to go and there is no ONE TRUE WAY.
Pooty tweet
it wasnt so much the drugs but more or less the fact that they are/were asspoundingly gay. i mean before the drugs... once they were high they made a couple of songs which are listenable...
Ringo Star.
He never does anything anyone here on slashdot couldn't do with 6 months of training.
The Beatles where the first boy band in every sense of the term.
Created an artificial demand, marketed it, when there audience changed, so did there music.
Which is pretty mediocre.
Even there best pieces are extremely dated, and weren't really cutting edge at the time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The perceived superiority of vinyl over other formats has appeared on slashdot before and has time and time again been completely and scientifically debunked by audio engineers and general geeks alike.
Especially note this comment. It sums it all up really.
Question everything
I wouldn't expect Apple [records] to give me free cd's since that is an additional object, therefore requires an additional purchase. But I paid for the records already so having a digital recording that I produced myself is what 'I' consider fair use.
So why pay extortionate sums of money to buy good music in a format that you cannot share with others after you have legally bought it?
Purchased downloads are for plastic throwaway crap, not for proper music that you will want to cherish for decades to come.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It's a good example because it is extremely valuable, and it has been able to hold it's value over time. It is a good example of the need for extended or unlimited copyright terms because of it's staying power.
I know this is almost totally off topic, but you mentioned "Thriller" and I just had to share a video I came across on Youtube a few days ago when checking out various a cappella groups around the world: Brigham Young University's Vocal Point covers "Thriller." It's pretty much awesome.
Note: I'm completely unaffiliated with this group, the university, or the faith behind it. I just like a cappella music and was very impressed by this performance (notwithstanding the fact that the mic levels are not that good, and the background singers occasionally overpower the lead).
I think the placebo effect directly proportional to the amount of money spent
So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!