The Beatles and iTunes: A question of money?
Last we checked, the full catalog of Beatles songs was supposed to be available for sale on the iTunes Store before the end of 2008.
Well, it's not happening this year, according to one of the band's two surviving members, and for all we know it may never happen.
"The last word I got back was it's stalled at the whole moment, the whole process," Paul McCartney told reporters gathered Monday for the media launch of his latest album, Electric Arguments. (link)
Where's Fake Steve Jobs when we need him?
Nobody was better at cutting through the posturing, lawyering and stonewalling by Apple Inc. (AAPL), the Beatles' Apple Corps and EMI that have kept the world's best-selling musical act off the world's largest digital music store lo these many years. (EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings, but must get permission from Apple Corps to release them in new formats.)
A year ago, McCartney told Billboard.com that the deal was all but signed. "The whole thing is primed, ready to go — there’s just maybe one little sticking point left, and I think it’s being cleared up as we speak, so it shouldn’t be too long. It’s down to fine-tuning.” (link)
"Let me put that statement into American English," Dan Lyons (a.k.a. Fake Steve Jobs) wrote at the time. "Paul wants more money." (link)
Now, a year later, the sticking points seem to have multiplied.
At Monday's press conference, Sir Paul was asked once again when the Beatles were coming to iTunes. Here, according to Billboard.biz, was his full reply:
"That is constantly being talked of, we'd like to do it," said McCartney. "What happens is, when something's as big as The Beatles, it's heavy negotiations.
"We are very for it, we've been pushing it. But there are a couple of sticking points, I understand. So the last word I got back was that it had stalled, the whole process.
"They [EMI] want something we're not prepared to give them. Hey, sounds like the music business.
"It's between EMI and The Beatles. What else is new." (link)
EMI, in response, issued this statement:
"We have been working hard to secure agreement with Apple Corps. to make the Beatles' legendary recording catalog available to fans in digital form. Unfortunately the various parties involved have been unable to reach agreement but we really hope everyone can make progress soon." (link)
Translation: Paul wants more money.
Or maybe Yoko Ono is the problem. One of the classic entries in the Secret Diary of Steve Jobs — before Lyons gave it up to write full-time for Newsweek (and before Newsweek finally muzzled the Real Dan Lyons) — was the scene in which he imagined Jobs and Yoko trying to thrash out an agreement in John Lennon's old apartment in Manhattan. (The deal falls apart on Yoko's insistence that the band be billed as "John Lennon and the Beatles" with Yoko listed as the fifth Beatle.) (link)
The irony is that the parties involved have dragged their heels for so long that much of the deal's original value may have evaporated. Most everyone who cares about the Beatles has already filled their iPods with songs ripped from the CDs. Meanwhile, as Peter Kafka reports on All Things Digital, the boom in digital music sales seems to be slowing, which could make even the digital Beatles harder to sell. (link)
If Sir Paul is really waiting for a better offer, he — and the Beatles fans — could be waiting for a very long time.
[Photo: The Beatles' Feb. 7, 1964 New York press conference, courtesy of Apple Corps.]
Old peoples music, as one wrote? Bloody rights! And it's great, timeless and will outlast anything you youngins will ever listen to. Like them or not the Beatles are indeed Number 1. You simply cannot argue with this continuing phenomenon.
Why are we still talking about a rock group from the 1960's?? I'll tell you why……. I just wasted a couple hours listening to tracks from Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Cheetah Girls, Britney Spears, Jay Z, Kanye West and Lil' Wayne. Every single freekin' track sounded exactly the same. Two hours of the exact identical song and sound over and ever again. Perhaps that's why we're still talking about a group from the 1960's.
I wish they would work out an agreement. I could easily get the music for free (as anybody else could), but I would rather pay for it since it is the Beatles and I feel like I am buying a piece of them.
"Because it’s *stealing* you idiots.
Some people still have ethics."
Sharing. It is called SHARING.
Stealing requires the movement of an article, from a given location, thus depriving the owner of it's use and function.
Hence, the USA does not "steal" the english language from the British. And farmers do not "steal" Basmati rice from the Basmati tribe who bred it over many generations.
However, an example of stealing could be applied to the very concept of sharing.
Your legal right to share information freely has been stolen by corporations with way too much political influence, purely so that their shareholders can make more money.
Your ethics smell pretty funny to me, but maybe that is because i am an idiot.
The Beatles deserve to get as much money as they can from the digital sales of their music. EMI paid them the grand total of 1 cent per record sold to split between the 4 band members (1/4 of a cent each) for the first 4 years of their recording careers, which was 8 or 9 CDs worth of music. Steve Jobs could still sell the songs for 99 cents each, but give the Beatles more than the usual artists share, and have Apple and EMI take less than their usual share.
The longer they wait the more money they lose. Why buy them when you can download them for free on peer-to-peer sites (limewire).
None of them are spring chickens, can't take the money with you.
Apple Corps need to forget about iTunes and any other online delivery of the Beatles catalogue.
They need to focus on releasing remastered versions of the albums.
The sound quality of the existing CDs is a disgrace. It is an affront to the millions of fans of the group that have always paid full price for Beatles albums.
Why would I want to pay for compressed versions of recordings that already sound poorer than they should ?
Wise up Apple Corps. Wise up.
It seems everyone has missed the key issue here: Paul says that it's between EMI and the Beatles. EMI wants something the Beatles won't give them. My GUESS would be that it has to do with a "Who controls how much of what?" issue. EMI, which is hemmoraging money ($1.2 billion recently), owns the Beatles master tapes, under an EXCLUSIVE licence agreement to the Beatles' Apple Corp. EMI owns the tapes but can do nothing without Apple Corps' ok. Apple Corp. has been battling back and forth with EMI since the late '70s/early '80s over royalties and control of what is released.
Forget iTunes, Steve Jobs, etc. It sounds like it's the same old song – a crumbling EMI trying to grab as much $$ & control; and Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia refusing to lose ground and be taken advantage of by EMI. EMI took advantage of a young naive group some 46 years ago, and that obviously still stings when new negotiations arise.
To Sean in Mesa, AZ. I think The Beatles already answered your question; " I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love" Too bad Yoko and Paul can't seem to live by that anymore.
Other posters: Why is it wrong for Paul McCartney to want "more money" but OK for Steven Jobs to want "more money" by paying less? It's a negotiation. The best rock band so far and the best digital music site so far. Hopefully there's a middle ground and the Beatles will be on itunes.
I already have all the Beatles that I want on my iTunes. Just rip a CD then give the CD to a friend. It's not like the Beatles have made anymore music since they broke up.
whatev
Personally I like the fact that iTunes isn't contaminated with the over-hyped nonsense about the Beatles. All we need to do is wait a few more years until the come out of copyright and it will be fine just to download for free anyway. I think they've made enough money already thanks, how about getting into some new (and in my opinion much better) music guys?
Publishing is owned 50/50 by SonyATV and Michael Jackson. However, I believe Jackson sold back a large chunk, if not all of his share, to SonyATV. Money for these rights is handled by existing deals that Apple (iTunes) have with various collecting societies such as ASCAP, BMI, etc. MJ would have no say in the matter. The songwriter and their heirs/estates would. Paul & Yoko for the most part.
Actually, I do listen to and very much enjoy classical music. But just like Bethoven, The Beatles are anything but timeless. They are an artifact of their generation. Are they good? Yes. Are they the end-all, be-all of music? Hell no. The soundscape has moved on and so has the audience. I'm actually over the 30 mark, and I listen to pretty much everything. But to people from Gen X on, The Beatles are overrated and their peak of popularity expired years ago. So, while it will certainly be labeled as an "event" worthy of front page news if their catalog is added to iTunes, I doubt that the majority of people who are young enough to be acustomed to downloading music will care.
If you want the music, why not download it for free?
Because it's *stealing* you idiots.
Some people still have ethics.
I know you just didn't compare Linkin Park to the Beatles. That's hilarious.
Beatles music is timeless. Who cares how old it is? I bet you hate classical music as well.
Here's a tip: Don't listen to only waht the radio tells you. Form you own opinions about music.
As has been stated before, does anybody under the age of 30 care about The Beatles anymore? Just like Bob Dylan, thank them for their contribution and move on. Download some Linkin Park and at least sniff the 21st century. The faster Paul, Ringo, and the bunch go away the better.
Unfortunately they aren't going to live forever and they can't take the music with them. They should go and make an agreement. I don't make too much money but when how much money do you need to be happy.
I'm more interested in getting the whole catalog remastered than in what form it is released. You'd think that Paul's and Ringo's pride in their musical legacy would motivate. Much of the Beatles' music is available digitally only on badly out-of-date CDs from the 80s, whose packaging still explains that you can keep a CD clean the same way you do a "standard" record. The high quality of the Capitol Albums, Volumes 1 and 2, with mono and stereo versions of the songs, was a step in the right direction, but the reports are that there won't be a Volume 3. So Sir Paul, remaster, then license to iTunes.
"Imagine no possessions… I wonder if the Bettles can? " I bet Paul wants to charge more at the Apple Store but that would imply that the rest of the artist should, no special treatment policy. I believe that is what Apple wants to avoid and with reason.
This "would have been" an amazingly profitable arrangement, but it's completely worthless now. People that want iPods already have them and are willing to upgrade to newer iPods, and as such we've all already loaded the Beetles onto our devices. I ripped me a copy from a copied DVD compilation I purchased for $3. I have all the Beetles I'll ever need. Anyone who's a Beetles fan has done similar to solve their Beetles desire. Heck, I'm not ever a Beetles fan yet I still got my curiosity to have it on my iPod solved long ago.
There sure are a lot of comments from people who say that nobody cares about the Beatles anymore. A lot of comments.
Agree with comments that if they don't sell digital Beatles tunes soon, there will soon be no one that wants to buy them asthey are so old. AT this point, I don't want them. Ten years ago, yes. Sir Paul is Sir Doofus.
What an insignificant farce about nothing.
Corporate greed, as usual.
They can keep their Beatles music.
I didn’t buy it then, I won’t buy it now…..
Most Beatles fans (including myself) already have the CDs & have uploaded them to their ipods. I think most fans wanted to see the remastered discs which appeared to be near completion when Neil Aspinall was living & still under Apple contract. I can understand the digital problems involving Apple Itunes but haven't understood why the actual CDs weren't released sooner.
Of all the great comments here my favorite is by Hitobito of Providence RI – "Greed will doom The Beatles. As time goes by, people move on with their music. A pity really, because the Beatles were really good and fun!" I agree. The Beatles are doomed. Because the Apple deal fell through no one will ever listen to them again. So long good and fun Fab Four!
I love how "Journalists" love to blame Paul for everything. Don't forget that there are two living members and two estates involved. Also don't forget that Yoko has sold everything from Converse shoes to baby clothes using John's drawings.Making a buck off the Lennon name has been her shtick for nearly 30 years.
Everyone who mentioned downloading free music or "stealing" music is currently being investigated and monitored as we have your ip addresses.
The Beatles are so annoying these days. Their old music is sweet, but it's now tainted by retarded "peace and love" Ringo and "I don't need a prenup, I'm in love…" Paul. Just put your music on iTunes so the world can move on. Lame.
There are a couple things that weren't mentioned in this article. First, Apple Corps sued Apple Inc in the 90s because Apple Inc got into the "recording business." There was an agreement in the 80s between the two powers that Apple Inc would never do the same thing as Apple Corp. With the invent of music software on computers, that all changed.
Secondly, Apple Corps has loosened up on their stranglehold of keeping their music from landing in the digital universe. As recently as 3 weeks ago, Apple Corp signed with MTV Games to produce a music video game (an extension to Rock Band) based solely on the Beatles. You can't get more digital than that.
Going back to the first point, there's more litigation involved between Apple Corp and Apple Inc than what us consumers can see.
I hope they settle this thing soon, before the Beatles break up, go their separate ways and stop recording music. Then this deal will NEVER get done…
Hahaha, journalism school is what got Mr. Elmer-DeWitt to this point – do you really think more will help?
As far as I know, Michael Jackson has the rights for all their songs. So he probably will have to sign the agreement with regards to the Beatle songs being on Itunes. And for now he has other things to worry about, right?
I can only imagine the tens of millions that must have been irretrievably lost already. The article is right, I just ripped my CD's long ago and added them to my iTunes library because they werent available online at iTunes. Of course everyone involved has plenty of money so I'm sure they dont care.
Sad thing is that these downloads will be for iPod (and other related products only). You can't play them on any other player.
The thing about Beatles music, the percentage of "good songs" on every album is far higher than on nearly any other band. Whereas a consumer might by the latest "insert new artist from 2008 here" album, they only want it for one or two songs out of 12. With the Beatles, you probably will enjoy 10 or 11 out of the 12. Makes more sense to buy the CD and rip it.
Or if you are of the free-download-persuasion, just get it for free 
ex ped: Apple Corps has said that when and if they release newly mastered digital recordings of the Beatles' songs, they will be delivered through multiple venues, not just iTunes.
Greed will doom The Beatles. As time goes by, people move on with their music. A pity really, because the Beatles were really good and fun!
You can get all the Beatles music for free at Bearshare, as well as, Limewire. Why wait on them to charge, when you can just get it for free!!!!
Only a moron would say that "only people that are 60 years old" care about the Beatles. 25-30% (or more) of sales of their latest CDs (released in the late 90's/early 00's) went to teenagers and people in their early 20s. Also -parents continue to introduce their children to their favorite bands, which is why bands like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC etc. are huge on Guitar Hero, etc. Great music never goes out of style.
You people are correct… no one even knows who the Beatles are anymore. That would be why they made a hit movie called Across The Universe completely based on Beatles songs. The movie is incredible. Of COURSE people remember the Beatles.
Why not just download it from somewhere else? You want the Beatles? Look no further than your Bittorrent search engine of choice. Besides, if Sir Paul says it's about the music I'm sure he wouldn't mind you downloading it for free.
I have trouble getting excited about the low resolution downloads available (compared to CD) on itunes. i already have the CD's anyway.
Sad. I loved the LOVE cd so much just because it was as close as I can get to remastered Beatles (with a proper low end and high end). What a sad state of affairs…….and after watching the 'let it be' dvd, Yoko really creeps me out.
Sorry, Paul. I already ripped all my Beatles CDs and digitized my vinyl onto my iPod ages ago! If you wanted any money out of this deal, you're WAY too late. I already paid for 'em once. Why would I pay for 'em again?
Well thanks to many people I know who have everything that the Beatles ever recorded, My iPod is full and ready to play!
People who even know who the Beatles are now 60 years old an typically do not own ipods–none of my nephews or neices even know who they are…so they can keep their music.
Why should they let iTunes take 1/2 of all sales. Then there's not hardly anything left when Heather Mills and Yoko take their share.
EMI/TheBeatles don't need iTunes.
iTunes should give EMI/TheBeatles 90% at least, and use them as a marketing tool to beef up sales.
Long live the music of The Beatles!
I highly doubt that this has anything to do with money, at least on Paul's end. I'd bet my Beatles CD collection (already ripped to my iPod a looooong time ago) that it's Yoko stonewalling it.
Mojo magazine here in the UK were recently invited to Abbey Road to listen to remastered tracks from the White Album. Sounded AMAZING, apparently… According to them, every album's been remastered (excluding the Hollywood Bowl one but then that's never even been out on CD) but when they'll be out is anyone's guess. I'd LIKE to think to tie in with an appearance on iTunes.
In my opinion, Paul is always a useful scapegoat for lazy journalists and fans alike (the same fans who'll LOVE the man when he passes on – hopefully MANY, MANY years in the future)… The man is a living legend, for all his faults (don't we all have some??), so why not simply appreciate the fact we're all sharing the same earth with him for a short while?
If you want to blame Paul for anything, blame him for using the iTunes story to plug his new album, which is BRILLIANT by the way. Hey, why not go download that and forget all about digital Beatles for now?? Just a suggestion.
As annoying as it is to not have The Beatles on iTunes, it's impressive that these young guys from Liverpool were savvy enough not to let the music industry walk all over them, like has happened to so many before and after them.
Thank you Steve for not making me pay for you songs! The Beatles lose so much money every day they are not a part of iTunes. Oh, the Beatles music is not that legendary, it's the political turmoiled past that is the cause of the attention. Those of us who want the music have already ripped it off from somewhere else.
WHO CARES?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every time I read about the Beatles, I want to puke. The remaining members are obviously GREEDY beyond our wildest imaginations. Why anyone thinks they're worth this much headache is beyond me.
I'm 18 and know just about every Beatles song ever recorded. Almost an entire wall of my room is covered by an Abbey Road poster. I don't need iTunes to find great music. I'll thank my parents and stick to listening to their music instead of their shallow, money-hungry arguments. If it was still about the music, or if it ever was, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Who ever thought it would come to this?
Beatles fans won't be disappointed… we all own the records on vinyl!
The engineers and artists themselves have said that the digital versions simply aren't the same…
It is not about Paul McCartney.
It's about EMI wanting Bigger Royalties off of the Downloads.
History -
Apple Corps Vs EMI lawsuits went on for years. EMI ripped-off The Beatles on Millions of dollars worth of Royalties owed to them.
EMI and The Beatles company' Apple Corps has an agreement that only Product approved by Apple Corps will see the light of day. This is due to the raping of The Beatles catalog during 1970s – 1980s, see Reel Music, Rock N Roll etc.
Hi Moderator,
Question: What do you want to be when you grow up Bobby?
Answer: I want to spend 40 hours a week monitoring others exercising their First Ammendent. I then want to impose my personal (oops, Comment Policy standards) upon free speech and decide what should/should not be allowed to be posted in a publice environment.
Is it controversial? Heck, I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Then again, I don't want to lose my job, so, yes, based on my fears, you're rejected 
First Ammendent? Not here, no how, no way….
ex ped: Huh? Two points, Bill: 1) Your post comparing iPod users to people who join fraternities and sororities (see below) was published intact. 2) The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't restrict the rights of bloggers to occasionally get some sleep.
Can we assume, for one second, that anyone other than Apple and Paul CARES?
Christ, ipod users, GET A LIFE. You're as sad as those yound men/women with no personalities who join fraternities/sororities because they fear being themselves….
Why is Sir Paul still worry about the financial stuff? At his age and financial situation he shouldn't be worrying about the money anymore. I guess Heather took a big chunk of the Beatles money out of his pocket.
No one I know is holding their breath for this supposed deal to go through. Anyone I know that has the Beatles have already burned, or copied their music from friends and family, or in many cases have downloaded them illegally. Whatever Apple Corp is waiting for won't be there by the time this deal (if ever) goes through.
If you want to fill your Ipod with Beatles songs just download it from a Russian site you just have to paid $2.00 per album.
I'm sure it is Yoko holding things up. Hey if they don't want the new generation to purchase their songs I guess they will be history and no new audiences. Wake up Yoko and Paul.
MANY OF THE MILLIONS WHO GREW UP WITH THE BEATLES ARE GOING DEAF, LOSING INTEREST IN 40 YEAR OLD MUSIC AND/OR DYING OFF. I'M DOING QUITE WELL WITHOUT THEM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Like no one downloaded the songs from the physical library, their parents discs, etc, and loaded their ipod already. A day late and dollar short for all of the greedy.
Anytime you deal with something that has as high a profile as the Beatles, you don't merely have to deal with the survivng band members, the estates of the others, the record companies or the distribution network, you deal with everyone who has (or perceives) a stake in the future earnings of these songs once their in the legitimate marketplace in a new format. If they have any legal claim to a measurable piece of "The Beatles" they can clog up the whole works. Sad but true.
You're better off listening to the Beatles on vinyl anyway. I love my iPod and love that I can rip my CDs onto iTunes but for The Beatles, Zeppelin, Sabbath, etc. nothing beats putting on a record and just sitting there listening to the whole thing. If the Beatles never put one song on iTunes my life would remain just fine.
The longer an agreement takes, the more people will illegally download Beatles tunes, and the fewer people who will buy the songs once they are finally released on iTunes. It's in everyone's best interest to get this settled immediately.
I think they should just jump ship and sell it on AmazonMP3. I hate iTunes – they charge more and give you less. It is infuriating. Such a despicable way to sell music.
Hey Mike, if you're going to call anyone a moron, you should learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
Greedy musicians who are full of themselves.."we are the Beatles, the greatest musicians EVAR! Pay us more money"…ancient history. They wrote great tunes, but so did Bach and Beethoven. Put them in the "Classical" bin and move on to the modern world.
Rob, Rockville,MD… "have all of their albums in high quality mp3 format already…"
That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one… I guess a 320 bitrate .mp3 works if you listen to them on elcheapo equipment anyway.
great make it harder for honest customers to access the music. great job! i think EMI deserves a kick in the teeth. anything less than immediate release is foolish
Hey Bobbert – try XM46.
The Beatles are on there, along with Led Zep, Deep Purple, Badfinger, Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Steppenwolf, etc. You know, songs that sound like songs, and are about something other than self-indulgent whining.
I tihnk the real issue here is, should anyone have to pay for Beatles songs ever again.
They're as established as Bach and none of them has worked at their peak in over 30 years.
I say make their songs public domain and let McCartney starve with his $1.2billion…
So I'm riding along in my vehicle with a group teenagers. I have a Beatle CD playing and I was very suprised that they all knew all the songs.
Very mean spirited (jealous journalist?) article about something the author obviously knows nothing about. Maybe that is why Paul is WAY richer?
Ummm Why don't they the Beatles and EMI just do a self release? They could start their own website and sell the downloads themselves for a lot more money. Why do they need Itunes? Just my opinion but EMI should set up their own download service. More profit for the artists and labels.
The real goldmine that awaits the Beatles entry into the online age isn’t strictly the music. As folks have pointed out, that’s all been available for a while. It’s the videos. Long before MTV was a twinkle in Robert Pittman’s eye, the Beatles were cranking out music videos. Is there anyone who wouldn’t buy the famous 1967 worldwide broadcast of “All You Need Is Love”? The Beatles music videos, individually and as a collection, would sell big.
Then there’s live recordings, always a weak point in their catalog. The January 1969 rooftop concert is still sitting in the vaults, waiting to come out. Assuming they can salvage decent audio, a collection of all their Ed Sullivan appearances would sell as well.
There’s still some life left in their catalog.
Does anyone know if they are re-mastered?
I've only bought a few Beatles CD's, because they have poor sound quality. I'm hoping they get re-mastered and improved.
Watch out i-tunes, EMI or Apple records might just decide to open there own Store and take all the profits.
It's about the margins, not the Beatles fans. Charging $18 for Sgt. Pepper CDs (last I checked at B&N) is not going to appeal to people in the margin, that's high for even new CDs. Apple Recordings are just cheating themselves out of money. Beatles songs are catchy & they're not played much on the radio much anymore – which is a perfect combo to killer sales on their music, if only the price were reasonable. In short, more reasonable prices could go beyond just "appealing to the margins", & trigger a huge Beatles comeback in terms of sales. It's a shame b/c they're losing time in the meanwhile w/online file sharing.
its all really unfortunate. Also, try finding AC/DC on itunes… you can't find 'em anywhere! …just a lot of "tributes" which are cheap cover bands…
The Beatles are a good band, but their greatness is a bit overdone. Further, they are living in the last century if they are the one's holding this up.
Bobbert, my daughter is 15 and she and her friends love the Beatles. I am 37 and my husband is 33, neither of us is exactly a fan, not that we don't like them, we just prefer the music from the 80's. My daughter and her friends just picked up a love of the Beatles all on their own, not because of any influence from us.
If this were simply about money, EMI and Apple (Corps) could release the CDs and they would certainly be able to make money. The iTunes releases can follow some other time. The real benefit of the iTunes release was that I could download a track _first_ to see if I even like these remastered versions.
But this shouldn't be surprising — it seemed like forever before the Beatles released the CDs in '87.
The Beatle fans I know already "obtained" all the songs they wanted the last time they tried to sue Apple. These people I speak of thought the Beatles were greedy and trying to take advantage of Apple's success, so these people spitefully obtained Beatles music to insure that the Beatles got zero money.
Could it be that EMI wants more money? They are in financial trouble and the Beatles have always been a major source of income to them. The Beatles were always underpaid by EMI. EMI has had to pay them back royalties because they short changed them.
Sorry Bobbert, you're just plain wrong. I'm 24, and all of my friend and I love the Beatles. In fact, I have all of their albums in high quality mp3 format already (and a couple on vinyl). Even if the kids you know can't name their albums, the Beatles are so ingrained in our culture that if you started playing Sgt. Peppers they'd all be singing along.
The Beatles are timeless. Good bands still directly rip off them, just like they have for 45 years (the Apples in Stereo are pretty forthcoming about it, they're even named after Apple Corps).
I have to TOTALLY agree with the conclusion. The Beatles CDs I want, I have purchased and ripped. There is NO WAY I am going to pay for them again.
3 years ago I owned 2 Beatles CDs-I know own 6-and I don't care to own the rest.
This ship has sailed-at least when it comes to me.
Sure I have all the trax from poorly mastered CDs, but what I (and I suspect, many Beatlemaniacs) want are the newly re-mastered and remixed trax that purportedly would be available thru ITunes. If it truly is about Paul and the money, how much money does one man need??
Let's face it, the kids today don't care about the Beatles, simply because they don't know many of their songs. They certainly won't buy their CDs, so a digital format is the only hope to rejuvenate the brand. I talked to new hires out of college, and not only can't they name any albums, but none of the radio stations they listen to play any Beatles. Heck, try to find some Beatles on Sirius or XM….
Apple records and Sir Paul better get their act together, kids these days are 2 generations removed from the Beatles' hey-days…
Okay, the person who made their comment at the very bottom of the list: Who says kids don't care for them? I'm a thirteen year old and a huge fan of The Beatles.