That WAS funny! Apple Corps obviously does not want to get in bed with Apple Comp...despite the most recent ruling...

Reply

"Not wanting people to only buy one track (you must respect the album and not get the one good song without all the crappy ones)"

On some albums, you cannot buy individual songs.

Reply

Actually there is Kid Rock on iTunes, one song I think. It was a song from the soundtrack of "Osmosis Jones".

Reply

I can understand the Beatles not wanting to bust up SPLHCB. While many songs are available on compilations (One, Platinum Hits, 1967-1970) there is a tremendous difference between hearing some of the songs woven in between other hits, and hearing the album in its entirety.

Apple needs to respect the artists more. If the Beatles will only sell come songs alone, but won't break up some albums, then I say let them.

There are far too few people who are unfamiliar with the Beatles. There will be a huge surge of sales when (not if) they come around to online sales.

If John was still alive, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Reply

"Apple needs to respect the artists more. If the Beatles will only sell come songs alone, but won't break up some albums, then I say let them."

They already do that. The upcoming Audioslave album, for instance, is pre-purchasable but not per-track. I believe other albums are album-only.

Reply

"If Yoko wasn't alive, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Fixed for you.

Reply

I think the Beatles are holding out because once they are making money off iTunes how are they ever going to sue Apple again?

Reply

Maybe the artists just want their users to have a real choice in formats and not to be near irrevocably linked with an iPod. The 2 reasons that keep me from ever using iTunes.

Reply

i love star trek TNG. apple = borg

Reply

Maybe the remaining Beatles re-form with Kid Rock on lead vocals to headline an anti-iTMS benefit concert.

Reply

This is basically the reason that iTMS will enjoy a perpetual monopoly. Even assuming quick pick-up by large catalogs and copyright clearinghouses, how are competitive music stores (think Zune's store) going to compete with the installed base of artists that iTMS has?

Another thing - is Microsoft going to try and call them Zunecasts?

Reply

>Not wanting people to only buy one track

They don't want to spoil the integrity of the album. Which is exactly why these artists won't allow radio stations to play just one of their songs without playing the entire album. What? They do? Well, that's just hypocrisy then! Never mind.

Reply

Not having an artist's music on iTunes only encourages people to find free/illegal alternatives. Slowly the resistors are realizing this --and noticing how much emptier their wallets seem. I think Apple will be able to convince the remaining labels without too much further hardship. It isn't difficult to market the benefits, and Apple is good (rather unmatched) at downplaying (as in the RDF) any disadvantages (like one-song purchases). Holding out on iTunes is very disadvantageous to the record labels...the market iTunes has *direct* access to is global, and unprecedented.

Anyway, like Madonna, and Metallica, the Beatles will concede. It is only a matter of time. The fact that they (Apple corps.) just lost a lawsuit against Apple Computer means that they understand that they cannot beat/avoid them much longer. I think the only thing preventing the iTMS from selling the Beatles is an adequate press release for the move. A great venue would be this fall, a year after the iPod nano's release, or the most recent iPod's release. I would not be surprised if we saw them alongside a video service.

I admit that most of this is speculation, but think about all the times when people were convinced Apple was not going to do something. Not long after most of those times, we have been dumbfounded. Who knows, I could be completely wrong. But we're foolish to assume that there isn't any serious paperwork between those big apples.

Reply

Last i heard, one of the biggest reasons the Beatles catalogue isn't available online (anywhere, not just on iTunes) is because they are currently being remastered for just this purpose.

Reply

Kid Rock is a dick. I filmed one of his shows last week and he and his crew were nothing but jerks to us. For all I care he can hold out forever, go broke, and die of whatever diseases Pamela Anderson is carrying.

Reply

Well, since MICHAEL JACKSON stole (outbid to be exact)the Beatles catalogue from Paul Mcartney, I guess he's not wanting to share with apple either.

Reply

From what I've heard, The Beatles are nearly done with remastering their complete catalogue. A lot of the work was done for the special "Love" show set to Beatle's music by Circue du Soleil.

I think the Beatles will hold out till they see what their own endeavors produce. And if anything, McCartney is probably the most stubborn of the group when it comes to Apple Comp., not Yoko.

Reply

Radiohead. That's what I want on ITMS. And Beatles, of course.

Reply

In time, their music will be available in itunes.

Reply

I can really understand where they're coming from. If you're only going to listen to one song off of Bob Seger's "Night Moves", then you're missing the whole point of that album. Which is that he likes to work on his night moves, but he also likes that old time rock and roll. You totally couldn't get that message if you downloaded the songs on their own.

Come to think of it, that's exactly what the artists are afraid of. People like Kid Rock and Bob Seeger and Radiohead (bring it on, nerds, I said it) only have a couple of good songs worth listening to, this way, no one will have to buy the rest of the dross.

Reply