You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: The Beatles To Go Online

News

The Beatles To Go Online

Monday, November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 PM - by

One of the biggest hold-outs in the digital music download market, The Beatles, is finally going online. EMI Group announced this past weekend that the iconic rock group's songs will be available for download "soon," according to Yahoo! Music.

David Munns, EMI Group's vice chairman refused to provide any additional details when he was speaking at a San Francisco music conference.

Apple Computer has been hoping to add the Beatles library to the iTunes Store, even after Apple Corps lost a battle in a London court earlier this year to prevent the computer and iPod maker from using the Apple logo. Apple Corps and EMI are not stating if a special Beatles-only music service will be launched, or if the band's songs will be distributed through other online music stores.

38 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:17 pm

apparently, you need more than Love to distribute the Beatles' music.

Cold hard cash.

Quote this post ↓

jimothy said:

member since 04 Jun 2004 with 612 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:23 pm

Cue the wild speculation: Microsoft is giving EMI $2 from every Zune sale for the exclusive rights to the Beatles' catalog.

Quote this post ↓

mahuti said:

member since 09 Jan 2003 with 377 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:39 pm

Beatles yawhn. Don't we have all of their CDs already?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:11 pm

I have all the Beatles CD's. My friends have Beatles CDs. Anyone that wanted Beatles songs on their iPod already has them. I will not be downloading a single Beatles song, since they are already ON my iPod, from my own CDs. This will not make EMI much money at all.

Besides, there are some teens that say "Beatles.. who"?

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:28 pm

Guest wrote:
I have all the Beatles CD's. My friends have Beatles CDs. Anyone that wanted Beatles songs on their iPod already has them. I will not be downloading a single Beatles song, since they are already ON my iPod, from my own CDs. This will not make EMI much money at all.

Besides, there are some teens that say "Beatles.. who"?

You're probably right, especially as it's easy to find used Beatles CDs and compilations like 1. Check Amazon's listings--it's easy to get used Beatles CDs for under $12, including shipping ($2.59/CD).

Quote this post ↓

fultonkbd said:

member since 02 Mar 2004 with 123 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:03 pm

I'm not overly impressed with the Beatles. I have a couple of CDs but am not a fanatic. I actually don't know many people, other than Baby Boomers, who really care about them at all. And most Baby Boomers I know already have most of Beatles on CD. So I echo the others in this post.

Now only if they could get Wings.....

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:41 pm

EXACTLY as noted - the only people who are excited by this are aging baby booomers writers who think the Beatles catalog will somehow cause millions of tech buyers to suddenly rush to the stores ... but what beatle fan doesn't already own not only every CD but also the 100 compilation discs?

As for MS paying EMI, yea, that extra $20k this Christmas will really sway them

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:56 pm

The above comments are very strange. The gist of the argument seems to be: (a) there's nothing special about the Beatles; (b) one can buy relatively inexpensive used Beatles CDs; and (c) everybody who enjoys Beatles music already has all the group's albums, and thus won't have to download them. Well, (a) is an entirely subjective opinion. As for (b) and (c), they can be applied equally well to most classic bands, if not all. If valid, why bother putting any music on iTunes that was released prior to 1990? Nobody will buy it.

Of course people will buy Beatles songs if they're offered online. I'm one of those people (and I'm not even an aging baby boomer). Will people buy a billion Beatles tunes in a week? Of course not. They'll sell respectably, though, and it's silly to dismiss their prospects because they're *too* famous -- which seems to be what people here are doing.

Quote this post ↓

Edison Carter said:

member since 10 Aug 2006 with 228 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:25 pm

Guest wrote:
The above comments are very strange. The gist of the argument seems to be: (a) there's nothing special about the Beatles; (b) one can buy relatively inexpensive used Beatles CDs; and (c) everybody who enjoys Beatles music already has all the group's albums, and thus won't have to download them. Well, (a) is an entirely subjective opinion. As for (b) and (c), they can be applied equally well to most classic bands, if not all. If valid, why bother putting any music on iTunes that was released prior to 1990? Nobody will buy it.

Of course people will buy Beatles songs if they're offered online. I'm one of those people (and I'm not even an aging baby boomer). Will people buy a billion Beatles tunes in a week? Of course not. They'll sell respectably, though, and it's silly to dismiss their prospects because they're *too* famous -- which seems to be what people here are doing.

I grew up "back then" (another subjective opinion) and I liked the Beatles, but I am not a fanatic fan. Truth be told I was more impressed with other bands and artists that I felt had more depth and creativity, I am big Van Morrison fan. Anyway, I am glad that whomever has the rights to the music has decided to bring them online because new generations will discover the music. It has been a long and winding road to to get them here and it will be a hard day's night to download all of their numerous tunes.

"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." Berthold Auerbach

Quote this post ↓

JimWCB said:

member since 29 Aug 2002 with 301 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:26 pm

Keep in mind they did mention a while back that they were restoring the audio to clean them up. So these new digital files may be cleaner sounding than what's on CD now. (highlight MAY, since we don't know until we can download them).

Quote this post ↓

algr said:

member since 07 Aug 2003 with 296 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:55 pm

Restoring them? Isn't that what they said when the Beatles came out on CD? How much restoring can be done? This music became popular with people listening on AM radios and mono LPs - it really can't be that sensitive to a bit of tape hiss.

Quote this post ↓

kevdo said:

member since 09 Dec 2004 with 54 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:40 pm

FWIW - the band that sold the most number of albums in the U.S. in 2000? The Beatles! (thanks, in part, to their Number One's compilation album)

Quote this post ↓

boric*acid said:

member since 13 Jun 2006 with 28 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:24 pm

Ohhh! Wouldn't surprise me at all if Microsoft has their mitts in the Beatles, to launch with Zune. Coversely, it would be quite a coup if Apple whipped out the Beatles catalog on the Zune launch . . . I'll be curious to see.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:00 pm

algr wrote:
Restoring them? Isn't that what they said when the Beatles came out on CD? How much restoring can be done? This music became popular with people listening on AM radios and mono LPs - it really can't be that sensitive to a bit of tape hiss.
Listen to the Yellow Submarine Songtrack CD. For the later releases, at least, there's quite a bit that can be done to make them sound cleaner.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:30 pm

The Beatles catalog SoundScans (albums sold at retail) over 30,000 PER WEEK! Obviously there are legions of new fans daily.

They will do just fine online & hopefully iTunes gets them!

d

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:53 pm

mahuti wrote:
Beatles yawhn. Don't we have all of their CDs already?

Ignoramus !!!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:54 pm

I think they will sell pretty well. The reasons for why not have been stated. The reason why is that there are many ipod owners, probably the vast majority, who are not tech inclined and they may own Beatles CDs but don't know how to get the CDs to their ipods (as silly as this sounds to us here). I know many people- far more than I would ever believe, who have bought a decent amount of material from the itunes store that they already own on CD. DOH!

For me, I personally fall into the group that is not a baby boomer, younger than that, but I love the Beatles. Since I have their CDs already, I have little reason to buy songs from iTunes. One nice thing would be remastered- but again as said above- when they came out on CD, they were remastered. AND I will tell you that the mastering job done on "1" is HORRIBLE (thats not just my opinion, it also comes from a highly placed record exec who is a buddy and I agree with him). You are far better off making your own version of this compilation from the previous material out there.

be good fellow mac friends

Quote this post ↓

fultonkbd said:

member since 02 Mar 2004 with 123 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:02 pm

Anonymous wrote:
The Beatles catalog SoundScans (albums sold at retail) over 30,000 PER WEEK! Obviously there are legions of new fans daily.

They will do just fine online & hopefully iTunes gets them!

d

Well I stand corrected... pretty amazing that they still sell at that rate - baby boomers be damned.

Even though I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles, I'm glad to see that they are moving the library online and I also hope it's on iTunes.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:57 pm

I have many Beatles CDs already, so I see no reason to buy from another download service.

That said, if, IF iTunes were to have the Beatles catalog, I would probably buy some additional songs and maybe albums to fill in holes. But right now I see no compelling reaosn to buy form another service.

Right now, between CDs and iTunes, I see no compelling reaosn (for me) to buy any music from another service. I don't buy many (none in two years) CDs at all anymore, so really for me, it's either iTunes or nothing.

Just MHO, YMMV

ANdy[img][/img]

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:08 pm

...

Quote this post ↓

coaten said:

member since 10 Oct 2001 with 3071 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:34 pm

Beatles? Over-rated.

<ducks>

Quote this post ↓

rpaege said:

member since 16 Dec 2005 with 96 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:43 pm

coaten wrote:
Beatles? Over-rated.

<ducks>

Well, music is a matter of taste, so saying you don't like the Beatles is a fair statement for anyone to make. On the other hand, it's nearly impossible to ignore the impact they had on the music business specifically and on music in general.

They really were the very first mega-star band and their music was intensely influential. Ignoring their impact is a mistake only the profoundly ignorant could make.

Quote this post ↓

coaten said:

member since 10 Oct 2001 with 3071 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:48 pm

[quote="rpaege"]

coaten wrote:
Beatles? Over-rated.

<ducks>

Well, music is a matter of taste, so saying you don't like the Beatles is a fair statement for anyone to make. On the other hand, it's nearly impossible to ignore the impact they had on the music business specifically and on music in general.

They really were the very first mega-star band and their music was intensely influential. Ignoring their impact is a mistake only the profoundly ignorant could make.[/quote

Profoundly ignorant?

Here we go.

Bwahahahahhahahahahahaharrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you haven't heard of Mozart? Hugely popular in his day. Changed the face of popular music, don'tcha know.

Frank Sinatra, anyone?

The Beatles were huge. So is Windows. Draw your own conclusions.

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 pm

coaten wrote:

Profoundly ignorant?

Here we go.

Bwahahahahhahahahahahaharrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you haven't heard of Mozart? Hugely popular in his day. Changed the face of popular music, don'tcha know.

Frank Sinatra, anyone?

The Beatles were huge. So is Windows. Draw your own conclusions.

Sinatra didn't introduce much, if any, new music. He generally didn't write or even arrange songs. He was a singer, period--albeit a superb stylist. Popular, yes; highly influential, no (unless you mean Harry Connick, Jr.). There were 'lebenty-seven like him, from Tony Bennett to Al Martino to Dean Martin. They "influenced" later sappy singers like Andy Williams, Barry Manilow and Johnny Mathis, who also didn't write much, if any, of their music. Sinatra influenced the stylistic aspect of singing (at least for a minority of white male singers) and was certainly one of the best ever at what he did, but he didn't make even as much impact on music as Neil Diamond, Roy Orbison, or Carole King, much less Michael Jackson, Billy Joel, Elton John, the Rolling Stones, or the Beatles. (N.B.: I know zip about country western, hiphop, rap, metal, and more recent musical styles--I expect that there have been others equally influential in their areas.) As many albums as Sinatra sold (lots and lots and lots--I have at least six), his "influence" was nothing like Elvis's, but, then, whose was? The Beatles started from where earlier greats like Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard left off and took popular music into new areas. Just think of two names: John Lennon and Paul McCartney. (George Harrison was no slouch, either.) Between them, they probably wrote more #1 hits than anyone, ever.

Quote this post ↓

flypod said:

member since 01 Dec 2004 with 8 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:11 pm

The OBVIOUS question no one is asking is:

Will the digital release be in wmp DRM format? I assume so since that is the only one licensable format.

Too bad for us iPodders.

Quote this post ↓

coaten said:

member since 10 Oct 2001 with 3071 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 pm

gslusher wrote:
coaten wrote:

Profoundly ignorant?

Here we go.

Bwahahahahhahahahahahaharrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you haven't heard of Mozart? Hugely popular in his day. Changed the face of popular music, don'tcha know.

Frank Sinatra, anyone?

The Beatles were huge. So is Windows. Draw your own conclusions.

Sinatra didn't introduce much, if any, new music. He generally didn't write or even arrange songs. He was a singer, period--albeit a superb stylist. Popular, yes; highly influential, no (unless you mean Harry Connick, Jr.). There were 'lebenty-seven like him, from Tony Bennett to Al Martino to Dean Martin. They "influenced" later sappy singers like Andy Williams, Barry Manilow and Johnny Mathis, who also didn't write much, if any, of their music. Sinatra influenced the stylistic aspect of singing (at least for a minority of white male singers) and was certainly one of the best ever at what he did, but he didn't make even as much impact on music as Neil Diamond, Roy Orbison, or Carole King, much less Michael Jackson, Billy Joel, Elton John, the Rolling Stones, or the Beatles. (N.B.: I know zip about country western, hiphop, rap, metal, and more recent musical styles--I expect that there have been others equally influential in their areas.) As many albums as Sinatra sold (lots and lots and lots--I have at least six), his "influence" was nothing like Elvis's, but, then, whose was? The Beatles started from where earlier greats like Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Little Richard left off and took popular music into new areas. Just think of two names: John Lennon and Paul McCartney. (George Harrison was no slouch, either.) Between them, they probably wrote more #1 hits than anyone, ever.

They bite every time.

/trolling-for-fun and profit

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:29 am

Anonymous wrote:
Listen to the Yellow Submarine Songtrack CD. For the later releases, at least, there's quite a bit that can be done to make them sound cleaner.

Agreed! The sound on the Yellow Submarine re-release is far superior than the original CDs. Excellent quality.

Quote this post ↓

WetcoastBob said:

member since 17 Aug 2006 with 83 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:55 am

All my Beatles Stuff is on vinyl. My old turntable is plum-wor-out. I have sort of skipped the CD phase so this sounds really good to me. I am wondering if they will be available in aiff format as I find that sometimes mp3 format can sound a little shakey.

I am chanelling this music from my MacBook Pro to my early '70s Pioneer 85 watt tuner/amp and speakers. The CD's I have downloaded in aiff format usually sound better than the mp3 version.

Cheers:

Bob

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:11 am

WetcoastBob wrote:
All my Beatles Stuff is on vinyl. My old turntable is plum-wor-out. I have sort of skipped the CD phase so this sounds really good to me. I am wondering if they will be available in aiff format as I find that sometimes mp3 format can sound a little shakey.

I am chanelling this music from my MacBook Pro to my early '70s Pioneer 85 watt tuner/amp and speakers. The CD's I have downloaded in aiff format usually sound better than the mp3 version.

Cheers:

Bob

If they are sold through the iTunes Store, they would probably be AAC, not MP3. AIFF files are a lot larger (roughly 10 times). Not many services would offer AIFF files to download for that reason. One CD (600-800 MB) could easily take 30-60 minutes to download, even on broadband.

Quote this post ↓

WetcoastBob said:

member since 17 Aug 2006 with 83 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:15 am

Thanks gslusher. I'll watch for that.

Cheers:

Bob

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:22 am

Frank Sinatra once said that the song "Something" was the best love song ever written. Who wrote it? George Harrison. Hmm... wasn't he a Beatle?

Katie

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:24 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Frank Sinatra once said that the song "Something" was the best love song ever written. Who wrote it? George Harrison. Hmm... wasn't he a Beatle?

Katie

From the Wikipedia entry for Yesterday:

""Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their album Help! (1965). According to the Guinness Book of Records, "Yesterday" has the most cover versions of any song ever written, while BMI asserts that it was performed over seven million times in the 20th century alone. The song remains popular today with more than 3000 recorded cover versions, the first hitting the United Kingdom top 10 three months after the release of Help!. Some sources still assert that White Christmas by Bing Crosby has more cover versions."

The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_(song).

(This will not work correctly in BBCode because of the parentheses in the URL.)

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:10 pm

Guest wrote:
I have all the Beatles CD's. My friends have Beatles CDs. Anyone that wanted Beatles songs on their iPod already has them. I will not be downloading a single Beatles song, since they are already ON my iPod, from my own CDs. This will not make EMI much money at all.

Besides, there are some teens that say &quot;Beatles.. who&quot;?
JimWCB wrote:
Keep in mind they did mention a while back that they were restoring the audio to clean them up. So these new digital files may be cleaner sounding than what's on CD now. (highlight MAY, since we don't know until we can download them).

Then again, downloads are compressed mP3, ACC, WMA whatever files, so there is no way the sound could be as good as what is on a DVD. Now if they came out with cleaned up files on Audio DVD or something, I might be interested in re-buying Beatles music yet again (I still have LP's).

Quote this post ↓

Willmark said:

member since 17 Mar 2005 with 73 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:30 pm

I used to be a huge Beatles fan, but Paul's bitterness over everything related to Northern Songs is a bit old now. IMHO it has clouded everything Beatles related to online music. You can almost see it running through his head "How are we going to get screwed again". We get it, you got screwed in the in late 60's early 70's. Stop trying to take it out on the rest of us. FYI: Its your fault for mentioning to Wacko Jacko that you made a boatload of cash from music rights.... oops guess who outbid you in 1983...

Note to Paul: Dude you've got over a billion, or at least you did, not so sure how things will be once the divorce is over.Get over it and settle with Steve. Seriously, the only thing stopping Apple from buying Apple Corps is Steve is a big Beatles fan.

In the end Led Zeppelin has moved past the Beatles for number 1 in my book, best guitarist of all time in Jimmy Paige (No matter what those aged, flash back prone hippies over at Rolling Stone say) and possibly the best drummer in rock in John Bonham.

Mark

Quote this post ↓

gslusher said:

member since 13 Nov 2002 with 2088 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:24 pm

Willmark wrote:
In the end Led Zeppelin has moved past the Beatles for number 1 in my book, best guitarist of all time in Jimmy Paige (No matter what those aged, flash back prone hippies over at Rolling Stone say) and possibly the best drummer in rock in John Bonham.

Who does Rolling Stone pick? Clapton?

Quote this post ↓

Willmark said:

member since 17 Mar 2005 with 73 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:00 am

Hendrix.

I could even be fine with Hendrix #1, but they placed Jimmy Paige 9th? WTH is that?? Duane Allman 2nd?

Anyone want to listen to Freebird for the 9 trillionth time? At least Stairway to Heaven sounds good after the 9 trillionth time

Eddie Van Halen 70th WTH is that?

Go light up another one @ Rolling Stone, Oh wait you already have, damn dirty hippies...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time

Quote this post ↓

coaten said:

member since 10 Oct 2001 with 3071 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:52 pm

Crappest. Top 100 list. Ever.

Quote this post ↓

Willmark said:

member since 17 Mar 2005 with 73 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:44 am

More like its the Top 100 list that gives other Top 100 lists a bad name.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.