Comments on: iTunes to meet The Beatles?

Paul McCartney has reportedly given his approval to make The Beatles' song catalog available on Apple's iTunes in the coming months.

[HaloZero]

That's it?

I really thought the entire Beatles Catalog would be worth a lot more than $600 million.

[rcrusoe]

That's only digital downloads

The iTunes deal is estimated to be worth $600 million. That
wouldn't include the continuing sales on disk.

Not bad considering that on May 8th it will have been 38 years
since their last album, "Let it be" was released.

[john55440]

iTunes = Low-fi , Beatles fans already have the CDs

If you're a Beatles fan, you already have their music on CDs.

There's no need to resort to iTune's inferior, compressed, low-fi music.

[mayhem6ix]

low fi iTunes

I have to agree that the iTunes songs are low fi, but it is a fact of
life these days that iTunes and mp3's in general have brought
the music quality back to the 60's in that sense. Depressing,
really, but true none the less!
I think I am a Beatles fan, but I don't have all of their CD's. It
would be nice to see them in the convenient format of iTunes
just to shop and then go to amazon.com to buy the CD. I am not
typical though, and most kids haven't really heard hi-fi since
most kids are used to hearing their music on iPods and Zunes
and what not.

[epr065]

iTunes v. CD

If you're a real Beatles fan, you already have their music on vinyl, a
pure analog sound without the limitations of digital music, like a
CD. But then again, who wants to haul a turntable around in their
car, or when they're jogging?

[M C]

Song publishing has nothing to do with releasing the albums or songs...

...other than a clever way of working Michael Jackson's name into the story.

The publisher simply collects standard royalties. The record label, or the artist if they own their own masters, determines whether or not specific recordings are released.

Semi-excusable though, I'm sure you know next to nothing about the music industry.

[stevenmusil]

Thanks

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the two sets of rights. I have clarified the point in the blog. And I assure you that I try to mention Michael Jackson in stories as infrequently as possible.

[rhynole]

Who cares?

Can someone explain to my why this is a big deal to anyone ther than the people making money off of this? This is not a knock against the Beatles. I am a huge beatles fan. But I don't understand why this is so earth shattering. If you want the Beatles on your (insert MP3 player of choice), how hard is it to buy the cd and rip MP3's off of it? Or if you prefer, to rip it in Apple's AAC format? Was the lack of Beatle music on iTunes really preventing anyone from listening to them on digital music players? And what's more, if you already own Beatles cds, are you going to then go buy the same tracks off iTunes beacause, WOW! their available on iTunes!?@?

[topraman517]

Remasters?

Over a year ago they said that the Beatles would be remastered before putting them on iTunes. Have those plans been ditched?

[technologybuff]

First of all the idiot who wrote this artical said Paul McCartney said All You Need Is Love 40 years ago when John Lennon wrote the song and sung lead vocals, so i thought that was really stupid. Now on to the topic though. I think that people want to be able to pick and choose from all the beatles albums, because they have so many great songs, and true you could buy all their albums, but it gets quite coslty. And while i own sgt peppers, revolver, abbey road, the white album, and their 1 singles album there are still many great beatles songs i don't own, and i am not sure if i will ever be able to buy all their albums, so its nice to have more options. I think its good for getting people exposed to hte beatles. But yah i still believe its best to own some of their albums, because you don't get the same experience with just the singles and hits.