Goodman reports, “Ono said her comments did not necessarily reflect the opinions of the three other equal shareholders in Apple Corps — McCartney, bandmate Ringo Starr and Olivia Harrison, the widow of George Harrison. But she added that the infamous rancor of the past has been replaced by smooth consensus because ‘we’re older and more experienced.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: If the business motive of Ono et al. was to get the the point where nobody gives a shit anymore, it’s been a brilliant success. They missed their window of opportunity by several years already. Whenever, if ever, they finally debut on iTunes Store, it’ll be to yawns and more than a few chuckles at their incredible tardiness.
MDN, your comment is spot on.
Solution:
1.) Buy the remastered CD set.
2.) Rip it in lossless.
3.) Forget iTunes.
4? There is no 4.
Forget Apple Corps, but who thinks, cares or considers them.
Yoko, call 1-800-GIV-ASHT.
MDN:
Dead ON.
I usually would agree with the MDN take on things, and acknowledge I may be correct, but have The Beatles not successfully released and re-released newer editions of older albums – whether it be through digital remasters or several collector editions/box sets? Were the Mono/Stereo re-releases from a year or two ago not a success? I’m pretty sure that if/when The Beatles get onto iTunes it will be made into a big enough deal to attract a LOT of people to want to buy the music (perhaps Apple will have a “re-release”, of sorts, of its own for the iTunes LP format and push a very well-done version of the Stereo/Mono box sets).
I may NOT be correct.. oops.
Oh sure it will be a news item when they finally do release them on iTunes… For like a day or two and they’ll certainly sell a few, but like MDN says… Nobody really gives a shit any more. Just buy the stereo remasters and rip them. I’m tired of this stupid non-issue.
Any music fan already has Beatles songs ripped from cd’s into iTunes.
the Beattles should send all profits to the black musicians they stole from!
Who cares Led Zepplin is the greatest band ever, and they are on iTunes.
err Led Zeppelin
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> where the damn edit!
I waited, then got the music for free. Too late, couldn’t give a shit,
Already deleted their flat crappy music anyway.
Every time the Beatles and iTunes are put in a headline, a puppy suffers an unspeakable act.
Yoko?
I’m decades younger than you, and I can happily wait until you shuffle off this mortal coil.
Don’t hold your breath thinking you’ll outlast me- On second thought…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
And I am sure the Beatles care what you all think.
Will U Still Need Me?
I think the answer is no.
I ripped all my Albums (Vinyl for you young bucks) years and years ago. The sound quality is fine and I wouldn’t pay one cent more NOW to add from iTunes. The ship has sailed, the train left the station and Elvis has left the building. Yoko Ono screwed, both literally and figuratively, John Lennon but she won’t get into my pants! All my Albums were purchased “at the time”. Chow, baby!
I see the crazy woman hasn’t changed. She never was too bright, had no sense of taste and thought John Lennon was famous because of her!
Idiot.
Yoko’s looking and acting more like that thing from the Hobbit that keeps muttering “my precious, my precious…”
Isn’t it obvious?
Apple Corp want Beatles content only sold as albums, Apple Inc want Beatles content sold on individual track basis.
I can’t tell her apart from George Takei. Oh my
They’ve been ripped and in my collection for years now…
I’ve got all The Beatles I need via my parents CDs or PirateBay.
Amazing they didn’t cash in on iTunes years ago.
I friend of mine bought the official USB stick last year after waiting for it to appear in iTunes, he let me copy the 320kbp files, I would have bought them if they where available through iTunes but though shit Apple Corps now I got them for free!!
After mccartney’s idiotic actions at the white house, I lost my appetite for beatles.
And so the old nag spews out the same out crap she’s been saying for years…
Do I care that the Beatles arent on iTunes… NOPE!
Who or what are the beatles?
@Mr. Reeee, Skip step number one and every step after that — if you really want to drive home the point “who cares?”
Oh wait a minute, I think I remember that from history class. Didn’t they strat the Vietnam war or something?
Yeah, I’m holding my breath… for Yoko Ono to die. It’s a crime against the universe that she outlived half the members of the band she helped to destroy, and as long as she draws breath, you can forget about their music on iTunes.
But you know what I find confusing as all hell? Open the iTunes store. Search for “John Lennon”. All his Apple Records stuff is there. Same goes for George Harrison’s Apple stuff. So what is the issue with the Beatles’ recordings?
(Unless there’s something I’m unaware of, like the solo recordings being sold back to EMI at some point. The iTunes page does say “EMI”, but I know those albums came out on Apple. And it says “EMI” on the Beatle remaster CDs, too, so I have no clue what the hell is going on…)
But anyway, I don’t think this has anything to do with business. This is a group of people who already have more money than they know what to do with, and who were never particularly greedy in the first place. I think they just don’t give a sh*t. Which would be fine, except that it’s a more than a little unfair to the fans who would have liked to have the music available digitally someday.
While I’m rambling: Did you know the Beatles play on Pandora? So the “keepers” really have no problem with playing digital copies of their music. Really, at this point, they’re just being obstinate.
——RM
Who is Yoko Ono? What is The Beatles? Who cares!? Besides, who ever this Yoko is why is she so snobby?
well, i never really liked Beatles, few songs maybe but it was a pop, there were many many much better bands in that time, i guess it’s down to preference and the taste. flat, repetitive – crap. prog rock of late 60s and early 70s – much better choice
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Who cares? I’m waiting for The Ruttles.
Opps! Spoke too soon, the Rutles beat the Beatles to iTunes.
The Beatles catalog is among the most profitable of any artist in the world, they sell more albums per year than the majority of current artists.
Your are fooling yourself if you think “their time has passed.”
@Mac-Daddy,
Yoko Ono is a holdover from the 1960’s whose basic talent and claim to fame is that she singlehandedly destroyed one of the most original and premier rock groups of all time, the Beatles. She’s snobby because a.) she & John Lennon took too much LSD, and b.) it’s just her nature. Go figure. Now, don’t go asking what LSD is; you’ve got teh Internetz in front of you, go look it up.
I was a teen/early 20s in the Beatles era and bought it all on vinyl. I would have re-bought it on iTunes if it had been available early on. All this delaying game forced me to rethink my music, with the conclusion I no longer care. It is ironic that Ono, who never made any good music and whose divisiveness destroyed the band, ends up the mouthpiece and gatekeeper for the Beatles canon. Apple Corps has been leaching off Apple Inc for many years, but they don’t matter any more, and they are not getting any more of my money.
I guess somebody has to say this, sooner or later. Beatles are THE most influential music act of the 20th century. The Lennon-McCartney creative duo stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the greatest composers in the history of music. This isn’t my own assessment. Most musicologists around the world would agree, which is why their music is studied along Bach’s, Beethoven’s, Mahler’s, Shostakovich’s… There were several great bands in 20th century, producing music that survived their time; however, Beatles’ music stands out from everything that was created in popular music during the past 60 years.
Everyone who grew up listening to physical media (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD) has had the opportunity to enhance their music collection by buying Beatles music on their medium of choice. The most recent generation (Gen Y), people who don’t bother with physical medium and ONLY acquire their music in downloadable form, don’t have that opportunity. They can occasionally hear a Beatles recording on an oldies radio; they can certainly find them on YouTube. But if they want to buy their music for their own collection (and for their iPod/iPhone/iPad), they cannot.
Throughout the years, Beatles sold well, no matter what was released, when and on which medium. It is likely that, at some point in the future, their catalogue will become available on iTunes too. And it will again sell well. Ironically enough, there will likely be plenty of us ‘geezers’ (who were already alive when Beatles were trying to make a name for themselves), who will “buy the White Album for the sixth time…” (First on vinyl, then on 8-track, then on cassette, then on CD, then on Mini-Disc…).
If you like the Beatles, you like their cuts the way they were originally intended. Buying remastered shit is not the same stuff you heard over and over again in the 60s.
I’ve already “acquired” all the Beatles I’ll ever need.
Some of it I’ve ripped from my own CD collection, some of it by other means.
By the time they agree to put the Beatles recordings onto iTunes, they will be out of copyright in the UK ( 50 years ) and they won’t get paid for it.
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p07_music_copyright
Buy the cd’s and rip them. End of story. Then sell them if you dont want the clutter. Personally I would keep the CD’s. I will never buy music from iTunes.
1. Check CD out of library
2. Open iTunes
3. Return CD to library
@ singidunum
your first paragraph just shows how limited your knowledge of music is, don’t get me wrong
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
iTunes consumer to Yoko Ono, “Don’t hold your breath that the Beatles music will stop being illicitly distributed through free venues. Greed, it will kill even a good thing.
MDN: Absolutely perfect take.
Also – the Beatles did do some good stuff – in their early days. But, the doping, the rebellion against values and standards, and the personal degradation turned me off. I know, these characteristics, like that of other ‘musicians’ are what draws so many whacked out kids and others to them but, not me.
I would not pay the .99 or 1.29 for one of their songs via iTunes (or anywhere) even if I could.
Yoko Ono: Destroying The Beatles Since The 1960’s
Oh my god shut the **** about this already.
hexx,
I’m not sure how to get you, but what you wrote is apparently based on your personal taste (I can understand if you believe there was better music than Beatles in the 20th century). Assuming you have some musical training, if you take time to analyse songs written by Lennon/McCartney (harmony, form, structure), you will discover many incredibly fresh, original, ingenious and witty moments. There simply are NO acts in popular music of the 20th century with music so densely packed with original ideas and solutions. What fascinates most musicologists is how these two were able to squeeze these little things into the popular music mold and make them attractive to the wide masses. All that, and not a single one of them (except Sir George Martin) had any formal musical training.
So, George Takei, er I mean Yoko Ono is the official spokesperson for The Beatles?
@ singidunum
i said don’t get me wrong
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
And yes, i don’t like The Beatles 😀 (although I tried really hard and have owned all their albums on vinyl)
from wikipedia, re: iTunes music sales
8.6 billion songs sold: September 9, 2009
10 billion songs sold: February 24, 2010
1.4 billion songs sold in approx. 5.5 months
If the sales rate is exactly the same now (it should be higher – the rate of growth of sales has slowed, but it is still growing from the last thing I read), if the Beattles sold 5 million songs over the same period of time, that would be 0.35% of sales. Sizeable for a single act, but a blip for iTunes.
Is 5 million a reasonable estimate? I have no idea. However, it does point out one of my favorite things about iTunes – it dilutes the importance of the “big acts”, which are so favored in the physical distribution model that they hurt development of unknown acts. Of course, the majors would say that the big acts fund the little, unprofitable ones. To me, that just says the model is wrong. Digital distribution will never totally change it, but it will adjust it by shifting more power to the consumer to choose, rather than being passively directed away from the little acts by a lack of supply.
I, for one, used to care.
hexx,
Generally, I agree that for the most part, it is the matter of publications/personal tastes you agree/disagree with.
As far as Beatles are concerned, though, it seems that there simply are practically no publications, or musicologists, or music theorists that dispute the uniques of the Lennon-McCartney opus. I completely agree about Pink Floyd (and possibly Frank Zappa); I don’t know who are the other two, but I”m sure they wrote some unique and valuable music. However, it seems that Lennon/McCartney transcend the genre and demonstrate unique talents simply missing in the rest of the popular music of 20th century.
In other words, there MUST be a reason why the Beatles were, and continue to be outselling all other artists of 20th century. Not to mention why their music seems to be by far the most covered music (thousands of different recorded versions of their popular songs).
I’m not really a Beatles fan, but I have analysed their work (in college, as an assignment for a ‘Harmony analysis’ course at the Academy o Music) and was truly fascinated by what I discovered there.
“‘There’s just an element that we’re not very happy about, as people. We are holding out.”
Obviously, they can afford to; what I’m curious about is what this one “element” they’re holding out on is. Doesn’t matter, really; 40+ years after their dissolution, their music still sells, which is more than we’ll be able to say about most of the current music – good or crap – on iTunes today.
“Also – the Beatles did do some good stuff – in their early days. But, the doping, the rebellion against values and standards, and the personal degradation turned me off. I know, these characteristics, like that of other ‘musicians’ are what draws so many whacked out kids and others to them but, not me.”
HA – how quaint.
@singidunum
That’s about right. I’m very conflicted about whether the Beatles should be able to restrict some sales to albums, though.
@hexx
Your own comments just show how limited your knowledge of music is and how little you’ve listened- or at least how little you’ve thought about what you’ve heard. There are many ways to assess music and it’s value beyond, “i guess it’s down to preference and the taste.”
Influence, innovation, and longevity, popularity, complexity, social context, distinctiveness, and range can all be measured- maybe not exactly, but they are just some of the key metrics by which we can determine relative significance in any art form.
And, um… “flat, repetitive – crap”? Are you listening to the band that produced Norwegian Wood, Taxman, She’s So Heavy, Something, Helter Skelter, Revolution #9, Glass Onion, Dear Prudence, A Day In the Life, Tomorrow Never Knows, etc, etc, etc…all within three years?
Prog, like so much else in Rock, would likely have never come about without the Beatles pushing out the boundaries of lyrics, composition, and sonic quality in Rock.
Just as they were to your favorite bands, The Beatles will be a vital influence long after the last pothead has forgotten every note that King Crimson ever diddled out.
@MDN take: “Whenever, if ever, they finally debut on iTunes Store,” I’ll not buy!
Hey “Pet Yokie”, don’t hold your breath that I give a rat’s ass about the music of a bunch of tired old farts who if the remaining members when on tour, the fans that were with them during their hey day would be throwing on stage their ‘Depends’ at ‘Sir Paulie” who would probably save for later use!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
After all this time, who honestly gives a shit…
@ Nathan
i’d rather stick with King Crimson and will die proud of the fact that i’ll be the last pothead who remembers every single note they ‘diddled out’
no point to carry on with this conversation because it’s all down to personal preference and taste. you can never find agreement between people who prefer pop and people who prefer something else. it’s as simple as that.
Just think though. When it does happen, the networks at all the senior retirement villages are going to be so bogged down with the downloads. I hope those IT guys will be ready.
It seems that the dealbreaker just may be the album-only condition.
I don’t doubt that there are several Beatles albums that can be perceived as an integral work of art. However, looking at some historic archives and testimonies about the way they worked, most of those albums in fact aren’t. They apparently often discussed which songs to include or not to include, how many more they’d need to put on the album and in general, it seems that they were essentially just debating over the right collection of songs to be bundled together into an album for a release. Put this against, for example, Pink Floyd’s meticulously ordered songs that, when listened together in order, provide dramatic arc, and one could argue enough of a fundamental difference to refute the claim of a Beatles album as an integral work of art.
In other words, Beatles songs are individual works of art, and specific album bundles don’t bring significant artistic value, other than historic context of the time when they were all recorded and published.
But this is just my own opinion.
WHo cares. We all have it on CD already in lossless.
Hexx:
I most certainly respect personal taste and would never question that. However, surely, while one may not listen (or even like) the music of Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven (or Berg, Stockhausen or Schönberg), it would be hard do dispute their greatness and their place in the history of music.
Out of all popular music of the 20th century, the McCartney/Lennon duo seems to be the only one where musicologists seem to agree can be elevated to the similar level of greatness. Unlike those other composers, whose primary genre was classical music, these two chose to work in contemporary popular music (I wonder, what would it be called today: soft rock, pop rock, just rock…?).
@ singidunum
and that’s exactly the reason why I’ve never really liked The Beatles. I prefer to listen to whole album, as the whole project, whole work of art. It’s about the way how you consume music, if you prefer single songs or you like to spend your afternoon listening to whole albums.
as i said before, it’s all matter of personal preference/taste.
When we discuss this wole ‘album-as-a-work-of-art’ idea, I will have to agree with MDN. With the exception of a very precious few acts out there (the one notable act that always come to mind is Pink Floyd), all popular music out there is being published as albums because of the labels’ insistence and business practices. For many years, I was in the music business (on the creative side, as an arranger/producer/musician), and I never met a musical act that had a coherent creative musical idea that spanned 45-70 minutes. Literally ALL of them wrote 3-minute songs, and when they had 15-20 of them, they put them on a CD. As MDN argues (and I agree), there are very, very FEW acts who take the form of an album as an inspiration and then successfully tell a story within the 45-70 minute time limit. All others are simply collections of songs from the same year, and not all those songs are actually (musically) good.
This obviously doesn’t prevent anyone from enjoying their music any way they see fit. And there is absolutely nothing wrong about listening to all the songs from a specific album in the order in which they were sorted on that album.
Maybe they are going to release their collection on 8-Tracks or Cassette. Same opinion as everyone else. Who really cares? The Beatles are yesterday – and by that I mean decades ago. The X and Y gens are not much interested in a band that has nothing new to offer. Sorry Ono – nothing personal.
@Ruggles
More men would choose to have sex with George.
I’m with Shawn on this.
“Any music fan already has Beatles songs ripped from cd’s into iTunes.”
I have all the Beatles music I want already on iTunes.
So Yoko, feel free to bite it you coattail riding never-was.
Beatles don’t matter. Behold the staying power of LED ZEPPELIN! Get the LED out bitches!
If that silly old cow lives long enough — even if she doesn’t — It would be perfect, if by choice, Jobs tells her and the Beatles’ decaying remains to bugger off, and never sell their stuff.
Yoko, I have to apologize. I meant to say,
“So Yoko, feel free to bite it you coattail riding, untalented, never-was.”
Again. I’m sorry for the omission.
YAWN!! (SNORING)
The beetles suck. Who the hell cares if they are ever on iTunes. They are like the Microsoft of the music world. Their music is obsolete.
I was in the target age group of the Beatles when their music first came out. Those were the days…
In the early 1960s, popular music still had to be optimized for monaural playback with a limited range. Nothing did bass well, and the treble was overshadowed by the whoosh-click-whoosh-click of the record player.
Popular music had the singers front and center on top of midrange accompaniments in the background. It was sold on monaural 45 rpm records and played on static-prone AM radios with poor speakers. The FCC didn’t approve stereo broadcasts on FM until the mid 1960s, but most car radios and portable radios were AM-only well after Sgt Pepper days.
Most of the Beatles music dates from that era. It won’t sound good on modern equipment, no matter how it is remastered. Nostalgia will drive iTunes sales at first, then it will quickly settle down to the same level of popularity (on iTunes) as Swiss yodelers, Mariachi bands, and grampa playing the spoons.
If Yoko Ono allows iTunes to sell the Beatles, she’s in for massive embarrassment. That’s probably why she’s stalling.
Dear Yoko,
All of The Beatles music appeared on BitTorrent long ago. But good for you at continuing to screw Paul and Ringo after all these years. Too bad Mark David Chapman aimed at the wrong person.
Yoko….. Don’t hold your breath for me to pay exorbitant prices on your web site for Beatles music….
Guess I am stuck with ripping songs off of the cassettes and CDs I have from years ago…. Not that I listen to the Beatles music very often these days anyways.
At least you can buy “Be My Yoko Ono” by the Barenaked Ladies on iTunes. That song hits the nail on the head! Then you can laugh and laugh as you rip “Revolver” into iTunes.
no Any Music Fan does not have the Beatles already ripped to iTunes because Beatles aren’t a defacto musical choice.
singidunum – an opinion is just that. Just because a group of people like something – does not mean it is correct. Look at politics.
I am in no hurry to collect Beatles music. if and when they come to iTunes – I will buy some. If they don’t – that’s fine too.
Instead of clucking like a chicken during his meeting with Yoko Ono, Steve should mindlessly repeat the phrase, “number nine, number nine, number nine…..”
Deal sealed.
I think if John Lennon were alive today, he’d either give music away as a free download on iTunes, or set up a “Newman’s Own” style charity set up where the albums cost a reasonably small amount, and all proceeds donated to charity. Would this yoko person? NO WAY. She wants money. Maybe it’s better than John didn’t live to see what she’s doing to his art, not to mention his memory.
Wow, who cares? I have the remastered stereo box set 24 bit limited release in lossless. You’re only shooting yourselves in the foot, Apple Corp.
Wow! I actually agree with an MDN take.
Thank you Yoko, no one cares any more so go away.
Seen in a comment:
“Apple Corp want Beatles content only sold as albums, Apple Inc want Beatles content sold on individual track basis.”
That’s a nice premise, but a lot of the Beatles were originally sold on 45’s as singles…
In the meantime, the 1963 UK original albums go public domain in the UK … in only THREE years.
Frankly, I’m hoping that the iTunes obstructionists live for another 3 years to watch them lose their copyright and for the works to appear online anyway…and that they don’t get even one “Pence”.
-hh
Finiest sh*** ever. Ono says “NO NO NO!!”
Now let’s be honest those who love The Beatles, can you please tell me if you are missing any song of their catalog? As far as I know all the CDs can be downloaded for free at demonoid and piratebay. Including the rareties. So Ono, back to your noodle soup and your nursing home.
Who cares! The beetles suck anyway. Only geezers like that shit!
I wish Yoko would hold HER breath. For like 15 minutes…..
Yoko, darling. If only you understood the ramifications of your very poor decision. It’s called digital music piracy. That was proven years ago. This is the modern world! Get back on the beam, dear. The kids will love you for it. <3 <3
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
@ Kevin J. Weise
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I think sarcastic humor has lost its grounds in this forum. In that spirit… What is LSD? What is Internet?
I really don’t care if they are going to bring Beatles in iTunes. This is something that peple at iTunes store
Bozo Ohno! is more like it.
well I waited with cash in hand. then I put it back in the bank when a friend “loaned” me his remastered collection.
so bozo ohno! I guess you and Prince can…well…I guess you can just…go to hell…basically.
I have what you tried to keep from me in exchange for my cash and I still have my cash….guess I’m just an idiot.
So why are the Beatles not on iTunes yet?
O No!… Yoko.
Thank you, but I believe I will hold my breath,
cause Yoko sure can’t take it away….
MDN: “They missed their window of opportunity by several years already.”
Bingo!
The Beatles on iTunes Store would have been a big thing when selling tracks as digital downloads was new since a big name in the catalog could have helped popularize it and people were eager to try out the service. Now, iTunes Store is a bigger name than the Beatles, has a huge catalogue, and already established a database of millions repeat customers. iTS does not need the Beatles. And the customers who wanted their songs by now already have them via other means, legal or not. The loser here is Apple Corp.
never cared for the beetles when they were famous, so i should give a flying @@@@ now? lete yonkoff keep her shit, maybe it’ll keep warm at night
HA
Who cares?
My Beatles collection from CDs has been working just fine on my iPods.
Interesting how people who “don’t give a shit” usually rush in to give a shit whenever anything regarding The Beatles on iTunes pops up. And while MDN’s often fierce defense of anything Apple is to be expected and admired by us Mac faithful, it would be good if you could sometimes include some reality in the shit you fling back – The Beatles are never going to be irrelevant, not in all our lifetimes anyway.
As for Led Zeppelin, used to be crazy about them back in the day. These days, the loud, repetitive riffs and high-pitched shrieking do nothing more than cause a massive headache. It’s so sad to see people whose tummies now hang lower than their thinning, greying hair at these classic-rock shows pretending like it’s still 1970.
In the mean time people are pirating beatles music like mad so when it eventually comes out it will sell nothing…
Besides, Beatles us HIGHLY overrated.
CrizzoDesigns you racist.
I really really don’t give a shit. I don’t like rock and I certainly don’t like the beatles. Just let Ono cut her losses on not selling them through iTunes and move on.
The young person who answered the rectory timberland boots door said that it was “the woman who said she left all the notes.” When I saw her mens timberland boots I was shocked, since I immediately recognized her from church but had no timberland boots outlet idea that it was she who wrote the notes. One Sunday womens timberland boots morning, I was told that someone was waiting for me in timberland 6 boots office.