Beatles on iTunes

Murdog · 29 Sep 2006

Apple (http://www.apple.com) just announced...

Spiderboy · 31 Jul 2006

Why is Apple (the computer company, not the record label) making such a big deal out of this? If I understand what they are offering, I can download the digital files for an album either at $1.29 per song, or $12.99 for an entire album. A quick check on AmazWAN indicates I can pay $7.99 and get a real CD. Who in their right mind would pay more and get so much less?

Hank · 01 Dec 2004

Apparently, those who want it NOW!

Sundodger1 · **Joined:** 14 May 2009 **Posts:** 300

If they were the hi-rez files I could see buying a few titles but not when I already have the CDs.

Spiderboy · 31 Jul 2006

Hank wrote:

Apparently, those who want it NOW!

But it's got to be a much smaller market than "those who want it NOW". It's really just those who want it now and who did not want it before. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb in saying that there are quite a few people who were aware of - and purchased - Beatles albums right up through last Friday. They are not in the market for this either, right?

Glenn S. · 30 Oct 2006

Who knows. I never would have thought so many people would want to buy the Red and Blue albums again but a quick look at various message boards shows that there is a demand for them, even among those who already have all the other albums. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these same folks will turn around and buy the downloads too, just so they can say they have them, compare versions, or whatever. I used to think I was a big Beatles fan because I had all the official releases, a couple of unofficial ones, and a few books. I guess compared to some of the folks on the internet, I am a casual fan at best.

Bolgani Gogo · 11 Aug 2004

Spiderboy wrote:

Hank wrote:

Apparently, those who want it NOW!

But it's got to be a much smaller market than "those who want it NOW". It's really just those who want it now and who did not want it before. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb in saying that there are quite a few people who were aware of - and purchased - Beatles albums right up through last Friday. They are not in the market for this either, right?

It is going to be the people who want individual songs, not entire albums.

Phil Cohen · **Joined:** 16 Nov 2006 **Posts:** 1274

A more important question is whether Apple Computers' advance to EMI Music will be sufficient to enable EMI Music to avoid foreclosure by Citicorp in March 2011.

Spiderboy · 31 Jul 2006

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

It is going to be the people who want individual songs, not entire albums.

Yeah, that's got to be it. And also, I'm afraid, there are more and more people who do not own a CD-player that is not part of their car or computer, and only listen to music on iPods and the like.

Baba O'Riley · 29 Jul 2006

Who cares?

AMW · **Joined:** 26 Sep 2006 **Posts:** 4543

Any previously unreleased iTunes exclusives?

Bolgani Gogo · 11 Aug 2004

Spiderboy wrote:

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

It is going to be the people who want individual songs, not entire albums.

Yeah, that's got to be it. And also, I'm afraid, there are more and more people who do not own a CD-player that is not part of their car or computer, and only listen to music on iPods and the like.

That sums me up pretty good.

For a blues geek like me, iTunes is a godsend. It is hard to find the new blues releases on CD, and half the time when you do they are overpriced. $10 on iTunes for Eden Brent's albums? Hell yeah!

Spiderboy · 31 Jul 2006

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

Spiderboy wrote:

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

It is going to be the people who want individual songs, not entire albums.

Yeah, that's got to be it. And also, I'm afraid, there are more and more people who do not own a CD-player that is not part of their car or computer, and only listen to music on iPods and the like.

That sums me up pretty good.

For a blues geek like me, iTunes is a godsend. It is hard to find the new blues releases on CD, and half the time when you do they are overpriced. $10 on iTunes for Eden Brent's albums? Hell yeah!

I completely understand this for any number of practical reasons. But I'm still wracked with regret that it has to be that way. To me, music is the essential communal experience. For as long as there's been music - and I suspect that's exactly as long as there have been human beings - it's been something that our species has listened to communally. It can certainly be appreciated by an individual, but it has so many social functions that you could write a book on it. [as quite a few have

]

Media that pretty much require it to be listened to in isolation or semi-isolation are only delivering part of the experience. I honestly feel sorry for a generation that grows up without having shared music.

Okay, enough of this rant...it probably belongs in another thread anyway.

Invisible Pedestrian · **Joined:** 24 Sep 2006 **Posts:** 26163

I get it and I don't and won't use iTunes or downloads. There are tons of kids who love The Beatles and while a lot of them have stolen the music, there are some who will download their songs.
I could care less about iTunes, and this isn't the big deal Apple thinks it is, but they at least now have the catalogue for those who want to pick and choose songs. This is in no way IMO aimed at Beatles nuts, but everyone else who legally download songs usually by pick and choose methods.

Bolgani Gogo · 11 Aug 2004

Spiderboy wrote:

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

Spiderboy wrote:

Bolgani Gogo wrote:

It is going to be the people who want individual songs, not entire albums.

Yeah, that's got to be it. And also, I'm afraid, there are more and more people who do not own a CD-player that is not part of their car or computer, and only listen to music on iPods and the like.

That sums me up pretty good.

For a blues geek like me, iTunes is a godsend. It is hard to find the new blues releases on CD, and half the time when you do they are overpriced. $10 on iTunes for Eden Brent's albums? Hell yeah!

I completely understand this for any number of practical reasons. But I'm still wracked with regret that it has to be that way. To me, music is the essential communal experience. For as long as there's been music - and I suspect that's exactly as long as there have been human beings - it's been something that our species has listened to communally. It can certainly be appreciated by an individual, but it has so many social functions that you could write a book on it. [as quite a few have

]

PS - Try out Eden Brent

Media that pretty much require it to be listened to in isolation or semi-isolation are only delivering part of the experience. I honestly feel sorry for a generation that grows up without having shared music.

Okay, enough of this rant...it probably belongs in another thread anyway.

I agree with you, but I don't see why digital music is isolationist. It's easier to transport than CDs or Vinyl, and with one very cheap cable, you can plug your MP3 player into nearly any audio system. I've plugged my iPhone into the sound system at bars, and play music for my friends over beers all the time at home.

I do miss liner notes though.

Brotoro · 12 Apr 2008

Apple...meet Apple.

JohnG · 03 Aug 2006

Kids today like to download so this makes sense. They don't buy CDs anymore (so 1980's) but quite a few may try them out.
Btw ....I saw the Broadway show "Rain" on Sunday and the show was filled with all ages. Its nice to see older people (at least older than me) enjoying the Beatle music. When i was a kid most older folks hated the Beatles, now the older people are from the 60's.

(T)Eddy · **Joined:** 02 Jul 2009 **Posts:** 11767

Spiderboy wrote:

Why is Apple (the computer company, not the record label) making such a big deal out of this?

Because the Beatles were the last major holdout for iTunes. When iTunes started, I remember some critic at The Washington Times,
poo-poohing it, saying that they didn't have the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, so they didn't really have anybody. (Reminds me of the
studio execs who insisted that A Hard's Day Night had to be finished within one year because they were convinced the Beatles popularity
would plummet after two years, or that critic who said both the Beatles and electric guitars would fade away.) Well, it wasn't long before
the Stones came aboard. With the Beatles on iTunes, it's official----if you want to sell music, it's not enough just to see CDs anymore, you
HAVE to sell MP3s on-line, and there's only one place to do that.

Linda · **Posted:** Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:43 pm

(T)Eddy wrote:

Spiderboy wrote:

Why is Apple (the computer company, not the record label) making such a big deal out of this?

Because the Beatles were the last major holdout for iTunes. When iTunes started, I remember some critic at The Washington Times,
poo-poohing it, saying that they didn't have the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, so they didn't really have anybody. (Reminds me of the
studio execs who insisted that A Hard's Day Night had to be finished within one year because they were convinced the Beatles popularity
would plummet after two years, or that critic who said both the Beatles and electric guitars would fade away.) Well, it wasn't long before
the Stones came aboard. With the Beatles on iTunes, it's official----if you want to sell music, it's not enough just to see CDs anymore, you
HAVE to sell MP3s on-line, and there's only one place to do that.

I've heard rumours that MP3s are also available elsewhere:

http://www.amazon.com/b/?node=163856011&tag=imwan-20

Linda · **Posted:** Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:53 pm

Baba O'Riley wrote:

Who cares?

+1

I don't think I'd want to know the kind of person who became genuinely excited about this announcement. "FINALLY, I CAN PLAY BEATLES SONGS ON MY PORTABLE!"

Okay.

Maybe Apple (Steve Jobs' company) are confusing their own excitement at finalising a difficult acquisition with actual public demand. Every post, blog and tweet I've read about this today has been awash in "ho-hum" replies.

I really hope this isn't all that Apple (The Beatles' company) plan to do with their catalogue in 2011.

(T)Eddy · **Joined:** 02 Jul 2009 **Posts:** 11767

Linda wrote:

Baba O'Riley wrote:

Who cares?

+1

I don't think I'd want to know the kind of person who became genuinely excited about this announcement. "FINALLY, I CAN PLAY BEATLES SONGS ON MY PORTABLE!"

Okay.

Maybe Apple (Steve Jobs' company) are confusing their own excitement at finalising a difficult acquisition with actual public demand. Every post, blog and tweet I've read about this today has been awash in "ho-hum" replies.

I really hope this isn't all that Apple (The Beatles' company) plan to do with their catalogue in 2011.

Well, I hear they plan to release the iPaul sometime next year... :rim:

Murdog · 29 Sep 2006

Well, this is kind of funny. The person who told me about this early this morning was extremely excited that the Beatles would finally be on iTunes. This was truly going to be a banner day. At the end of the day I asked how she felt now about the announcement and what Beatles had she downloaded. Turns out she hadn't downloaded anything. Instead, she went on line and began reserving Beatles CDs at her local branch of the public library system. Her plan is to pick them up, take them home, burn them, and add them to her iTunes playlist.

Beatles on iTunes

Who is WANline