5 ms·
Apple Strikes Deal to Sell Beatles Catalog Online
- dotBen 16y agoFor those of you too young to remember, the Beatles were a band from Liverpool, England that your grandparents probably enjoyed.
- daeken 16y agoPfft, I'm 22 and "I'm Only Sleeping" is my theme song.
- ugh 16y agoYou are definitely missing something if you are not checking out the Beatles. Their more well known stuff has been repeated to death but they have a huge catalog with tons of great songs you have never heard before. I like Tomorrow Never Knows and In My Life. (I’m 22 and usually listen to Interpol or Arcade Fire or Girl Talk or Jay-Z. My mom was a huge Beatles fan as a teenager but has since then forgotten all about them.)
- mechanical_fish 16y agoThe scary thing about the Beatles is that if you eliminate all their #1 hits their second tier is still astonishing. My favorite obscure tracks are probably Rain and Good Morning Good Morning, but ask me again tomorrow and I'll have some different ones.
- mechanical_fish 16y agoin the 2000s, only Eminem sold more albums in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan. However old the fans may be, they sure do buy a lot of music. And there aren't that many other bands with their entire own edition of Rock Band.
- Legion 16y agoThere's more to explain than that. Young reader, you may know the Beatles as a teeniebopper boy band. You've probably seen old videos of them playing sappy pop like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to crowds of fainting 14 year old girls. What you may not realize is that they turned into an experimental band that really pushed the envelope of their day, in a way we almost never get to see in mainstream pop music today. (Sadly, almost all the boundary-pushing today is on the indie fringes - great stuff but only heard by people who seek it out) To try and make an illustration using more contemporary pop acts, imagine if The Backstreet Boys turned into Radiohead and were the ones putting out albums like OK Computer and Kid A. That's kind of like the progression the Beatles took. Skip the early albums and grab a copy of Revolver.
- philwelch 16y agoThis is a common narrative; I think the dissenting point of view is worthy of consideration as well: http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html
- dotBen 16y agoI just gotta say when I wrote my original comment I thought I'd take a beating on the karma points as often my 'wise-crack' quips don't go down so well. Glad to see HN has a little bit of a sense of humour!
- sumeetjain 16y agoI get it: The Beatles are huge, and Apple's had a colorful relationship with them. But why does that make tomorrow unforgettable? "While the move to digital does not quite rival the band’s first trip across the Atlantic to appear on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964, it is an acknowledgment that online purchases dominate the music industry’s sales strategy." I didn't realize that the online purchasing model was something that still needed acknowledgement, and I definitely don't see how one artist's addition to the iTunes catalogue (even if that artist is The Beatles) is such an acknowledgement.
- sumeetjain 16y agoAlso, this reminded me of a friend's tweet from a while back. http://twitter.com/holman/status/20483293633 http://twitter.com/holman/status/20483293633
- protomyth 16y agoIf you are a Beatles fan you have their music on (much better quality than mp3/aac) CDs. You have probably also ripped the songs to mp3/aac at a higher bit rate than iTunes will sell you (or maybe to a lossless format). Given that, I would expect some second day stories about how much better the CDs are anyway. The only reason I would see a Beatles announcement as worth much is if it signaled that iTunes was going to sell music at above CD quality. At that point I could see some really big time sales.
- haribilalic 16y agoOr they downloaded average quality MP3s from P2P.
- Dbug 16y agoAbove CD quality? With 60's material done with vacuum tubes and magnetic tape, CD sampling rates and bit depth won't limit the distribution quality. Of course there are often cases where there's room for noticeable improvement over earlier CD releases, but that's due to better hardware and differences in mastering and other processing.
- dstein 16y agoThe Beatles being made available in MP3 17 years after the invention of the MP3 isn't exactly noteworthy.
- jws 16y agoNot MP3. AAC. They managed to wait out mp3 entirely.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThe Beatles have already embraced MP3, last year's release of the box set also saw a limited edition USB key containing FLAC and MP3 versions of the songs. http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-USB/dp/B002VH7P4O http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-USB/dp/B002VH7P4O
- qjz 16y agoPerhaps a little background will help explain why some consider this a big deal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- glhaynes 16y agoIf this is all that's announced tomorrow, then the apple.com post today was overhyping. And I don't generally accuse Apple of overhyping.
- brudgers 16y agoMaybe overhyped, but definitely Incredible, Amazing, Magical, and Revolutionary.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- powera 16y agoDoes this really matter? Has anyone waited 7 years to listen to the Beatles and not, you know, used a CD to add it to iTunes?
- davidjhall 16y agoPhony Beatlemania has bitten the dust.