View Full Version : I've got to admit it's getting better.
Talking Pie
04-13-2006, 05:33 PM
Beatles catalogue could be availbale for online puchase soon. (http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/eo/20060413/114497742004.html)
George
04-13-2006, 05:42 PM
good news for anyone who pays for their online music purchases. ;-/
Talking Pie
04-13-2006, 05:44 PM
good news for anyone who pays for their online music purchases. ;-/
Well, it costs 50% less than a store like Borders for example. ;)
America: Fuck Yea!
04-13-2006, 05:45 PM
Jacko needs money....
ever wonder why it still costs $12-18 for a damn Beatles record? and how many artists have sold a fraction and have theirs for $6-9?
skittlebrau
04-13-2006, 05:48 PM
If they don't go with iTunes, it'd be a huge mistake. For serious.
Still, nice to see the catalog could finally go online. Then maybe all the whiny crybabies will stop making iMixes with "WE WANT THE BEATLES/AC/DC/ZEPPELIN!!!" in the title.
Talking Pie
04-13-2006, 06:07 PM
If they don't go with iTunes, it'd be a huge mistake. For serious.
Still, nice to see the catalog could finally go online. Then maybe all the whiny crybabies will stop making iMixes with "WE WANT THE BEATLES/AC/DC/ZEPPELIN!!!" in the title.
As well as Metallica and Radiohead. Those bands along with the ones Skittle mentioned are the most popular ones that aren't on iTunes yet based on an article I read about in Entertainment Weekly not too long ago. Based on the article I read, it looks worst for Zeppelin. I believe Metallica has a chance if Lars Ulrich would stop being such a greedy asshole, IMO.
Larson Something
04-13-2006, 07:48 PM
ever wonder why it still costs $12-18 for a damn Beatles record?
From what I've read, it's because Neil Aspinall thinks discounting the albums cheapens the Beatle brand. He feels they are the modern-day equivalent of classical music and therefore worthy of a premium price. He probably wouldn't put them on iTunes even without the legal battle, because they won't charge more than 99 cents a song.
And here, you don't usually find the CDs for less than 20 bucks, although in the past year or so some of the albums have been 2 for $30 at HMV.
If they don't go with iTunes, it'd be a huge mistake. For serious.
Still, nice to see the catalog could finally go online. Then maybe all the whiny crybabies will stop making iMixes with "WE WANT THE BEATLES/AC/DC/ZEPPELIN!!!" in the title.
They don't have Beatles tracks on the iTunes store because of an exclusive contract between Apple and Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Yoko Ono, who have sued Apple before because of their logo, which looks almost pretty damn similar with The Beatles' Apple Corps logo. McCartney, Starr, and Ono have just taken Apple back to court because they say their iTunes store is breaching the contract.
Dead Nigga Storage
04-13-2006, 08:05 PM
that's such a lame complaint though. i was always under the impression that all apples sorta...looked alike.
and honestly, if you're a big enough beatles fan, you can just find their whole catalogue's list, and find free music sources to download it all from, then clean up all the tags and graphics and such in itunes. it'd take time, but hey.
that's such a lame complaint though. i was always under the impression that all apples sorta...looked alike
I was just stating a fact I read somewhere...not too long ago.
caribou
04-13-2006, 10:19 PM
He feels they are the modern-day equivalent of classical music and therefore worthy of a premium price.
Not that I disagree with the first part of that statement, but I've never bought a classical album that cost more than $11.99. And they've always been top quality. Really, if anything, classical seems to be the cheapest CD market.
Beatles' albums are $17.99 at the least here in New England at Newbury Comics, whose prices are usually incredibly decent. It's baffling. Seriously, $17.99 for a half hour record like Meet The Beatles is pretty ridiculous.
Rowdy
04-13-2006, 11:09 PM
I think it's good that they've waited, especially because they didn't want to give the inferior 1987 remasters to iTunes and other services. Bring on the remasters!
moonwalker69
04-15-2006, 05:52 AM
Jacko needs money....Perhaps???
He's had issues with Sony, his $1.1 billion contract is nearly up with them and his new album is underway. At the moment he's detoxing in Bahrain and isn't in as much financial trouble as the media makes him out to be. He's currently worth over $US300-600 million+ and owns all McCartney/Lennon compositions from the catalogue, so I dunno. Maybe he might hold onto it a bit longer....who knows?
However this would be an interesting move in terms of online music. As long as I can get all their music without being ripped off...I'm happy.
skittlebrau
04-15-2006, 01:05 PM
They don't have Beatles tracks on the iTunes store because of an exclusive contract between Apple and Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Yoko Ono, who have sued Apple before because of their logo, which looks almost pretty damn similar with The Beatles' Apple Corps logo. McCartney, Starr, and Ono have just taken Apple back to court because they say their iTunes store is breaching the contract.
Umm...I know that. Hence the comment. It also states that in the article posted, but I knew about it long before.
grissom
04-16-2006, 03:08 PM
and honestly, if you're a big enough beatles fan, you can just find their whole catalogue's list, and find free music sources to download it all from, then clean up all the tags and graphics and such in itunes. it'd take time, but hey.
I actually did that. Didn't take me more than an hour or two to add the album art and stuff. Definitely worth it to avoid the surely ridiculous cost of all those songs
Talking Pie
04-16-2006, 04:53 PM
and honestly, if you're a big enough beatles fan, you can just find their whole catalogue's list, and find free music sources to download it all from, then clean up all the tags and graphics and such in itunes. it'd take time, but hey.
Or you can rent it from the library like I did. That's how I burned Rubber Soul and Abbey Road a few years ago.
skittlebrau
04-16-2006, 06:30 PM
It took me over a decade to collect every Beatles album, but I did actually pay for them. First album I bought was Sgt. Pepper way back in 1993 and I completed my collection by buying Let it Be approximately two years ago. Of course, I'm excluding stuff like Live at the BBC or the Anthologies or the like since those are collections rather than albums, but I own all of that stuff, too. I might just legally own everything legitimately released...
But whatever I find now is done online and mainly bootlegs because I'm an ass.
The Beatles catalogue is ridiculously expensive. I've bought them all, but grudgingly.
I dont get the Itunes thing. Im not into pirated music, I just download live bootlegs and rarities and such that you cant get and I buy all my albums on CD, but I could never bring myself to pay for music using one program or using a different one with a much larger range of music and just as easily getting it free. Talk about burning money.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.