Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTunes, Bad Apple, Apple, Apple History
McCartney on iTunes: "We want it to happen"
The cutest Beatle, Sir Paul McCartney, did an interview with Entertainment Weekly recently for his new album, and the long-running subject of the Beatles on iTunes came up right at the last question. At this point, this is probably our favorite Apple failure -- they've reinvented the way we listen to music, they've made smartphones mainstream, they've constantly re-created and revolutionized the personal computer, and yet they've never been able to get the best band in history on their iTunes service.Not for lack of trying, says Sir Paul. He says that he's down with it, and that both sides are still trying to come to an agreement, but that "we" (presuming that means the band themselves) definitely "want it to happen." But he also says that "the record company" (presumably Apple Records, who have had their troubles with Apple Computers in the past)
"was taken over by new people quite recently, so there is a gridlock of sorts." So we continue to wait for The Beatles to show up on iTunes.
Meanwhile, they are apparently going ahead with the Rock Band version featuring The Beatles -- McCartney says that Harmonix is still planning to put the music in the console videogame/band simulator, and that they're going to feature The Beatles in different eras: "early days, Liverpool, then psychedelic, and on from there. It's very cool." Sounds like it -- even if we can't play the White Album from AppleTV, at least we'll be able to do it from the Xbox.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chris McCorkle said 8:17AM on 2-10-2009
Give me a complete, lossless ALAC collection of the Beatles, and I'll buy it at $1.50 per song easy.
Reply
Galley said 8:44AM on 2-10-2009
The Beatles' music has been available losslessly for 20 years now. They're called CDs, and they're much cheaper than a $1.50 per song.
Michael said 1:52AM on 2-11-2009
I don't think Guy Hands will approve that.
He, by the way, is who Macca is referring to - the non-musical financier acting as head of EMI (who distributes the Beatle catalog) and currently trying to leverage as much cash as he can for the fund that bought the label.
Howie Isaacks said 8:19AM on 2-10-2009
I couldn't care less. Anyone who's a big fan of The Beatles already has all of their music. As for being added to iTunes, what's the big deal? iTunes doesn't need them. I think their music sucks and, so does the stuff that Paul McCartney puts out. Why MUST their music be on iTunes? I think Apple should ban them from iTunes over those stupid lawsuits that Apple Corps launched against Apple.
Reply
Gary said 9:22AM on 2-10-2009
It's the remastering that we're really waiting on. With the exception of Let It Be...Naked and Love, the Beatles albums currently available on CD were mastered in a hurry for CD releases in the mid 80s, and the mixes are pretty much unaltered from vinyl reissues of the mid-70s.
Supposedly the remastering is done, and I can't help but wonder if the whole 'Beatles on iTunes' saga is preventing us from buying the remastered albums on CD.
I know I'll be going straight for the CDs and passing over the iTunes releases when they finally arrive.
Level 5 said 9:23AM on 2-10-2009
Spot on, spot on. All my Beatles CD's and good stuff has been on iPods of mine for YEARS. People who want them either have them, or can easily get them. The Beatles on iTunes isn't a huge deal. I will always love The Beastles' music, but let's be real here. In 2009, you have 2 surviving members, 1 explicitly asked never to be contacted by fans again, and the 2nd gives away millions to a 1-legged prostitute. Not exactly the legends of decades past, yeah?
Eric said 3:00PM on 2-10-2009
To be fair to Ringo, he didn't ask "never to be contacted by fans again," he asked that no one send him autograph requests in the mail, because so many of them ended up on eBay a week later.
Level 5 said 7:15PM on 2-10-2009
@Eric,
My mistake, I actually looked this up afterwards and apparently had to fall on my face for it lol. But yeah, at the same time, those who want Beatles tunes can get them, and rip their own CDs. It's not the end of the world.
Michael said 2:00AM on 2-11-2009
Ringo didn't seem to see the obvious solution there: sign *everything* humanly possible and devalue the selling price of the autographs (while the sentimental value, for those who really want the autos for themselves, remains the same).
Luna Lovegood said 8:55AM on 2-10-2009
Who still has a hard-on for the Beatles on the iTunes Store?
Reply
James Donevan said 9:00AM on 2-10-2009
" But he also says that "the record company" (presumably Apple Records..."
He is referring to EMI who were taken over by Terra Firma Capital Partners in '07.
Reply
hunkybachelor said 9:11AM on 2-10-2009
Really can't see what all the fuss is about... 99% of their songs are drug-fuelled dross anyway.
Reply
Bizzle said 9:18AM on 2-10-2009
You must not be into much in terms of modern music since 99% of it is "drug-fuelled dross."
Gary said 9:24AM on 2-10-2009
And 99% of it is influenced by the Beatles.
vandil said 9:27AM on 2-10-2009
People who like the Beatles already own their CDs/tapes/vinyl/8-tracks and have found some way to get those tracks playable on an iPod or iPhone.
The rest of us couldn't give a flying yellow submarine.
Apple Corps. dropped the digital ball years ago and no one cares now. Today's kids discover music via digital file downloads (both paid and pirated). Choosing to not have their files out there alienates their music from this generation and sentences that music to silence once their CD/tape/vinyl/8-track fans die.
Reply
droslovinia said 9:36AM on 2-10-2009
Let's diss on Mozart, too! He must have been drinking too much. Whether you like them or not, the Beatles are among the most important musical influences of the 20th century. It the 19th century's "popular music" still survives as "classical" music these days, then the Beatles will almost certainly have that status later in this century, and that makes them significant enough to include in any music collection.
Reply
Rich said 12:14PM on 2-10-2009
Oh come on. Comparing the Beatles to Mozart is ridiculous. Mozart achieved more in one phrase than the Beatles could in their collective musical lifetimes. He also had a dry sense of humour still evident in his music today.
Their lifestyles may all have been unwholesome, but that's a result, not a generator, of fame. At least McCartney in his dotage has the sense to promote a healthy and environmentally sound lifestyle.
As for music, 'The Beatles" is no longer relevant. It speaks of yesterday's problems, not today's. It doesn't speak to today's people, because this is a very different world to that of the faux-innocence of the 60s. They were a product of their time, and so was their music.
Now while Mozart's music was a product of the *eighteenth* century (take note), it is still relevant today, because it speaks of how to rise above problems; not simply documenting them.
Of all the Beatles, Harrison was the only one with any kind of musicianship; and he still was not particularly accomplished.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy their music -- I just enjoy it on a different level to genius like Mozart.
Matt said 3:27PM on 2-11-2009
"Mozart achieved more in one phrase than the Beatles could in their collective musical lifetimes."
As a lifelong musician, I completely disagree with this statement, and I happen to love Mozart. You want to talk relevancy? Certainly, on a purely musical level, more people in modern times can relate to the Beatles' music than Mozart's. The Beatles were also brilliant lyricists and singers, something Mozart cannot attest to (or at least, if he were, history does not mention it). There is a reason that their music has stood the test of time, and so many musicians cite them as influential.
"Of all the Beatles, Harrison was the only one with any kind of musicianship; and he still was not particularly accomplished."
Possibly one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. Paul McCartney is a master of multiple instruments, and could play circles around George on the guitar (who was talented in his own right). John, Paul, and George were all accomplished vocalists whose recorded harmonies are noted as some of the tightest ever. And I think that maybe, just maybe, they had some talent as composers, or does that not count as musicianship?
Next time, try to think about what you're saying before you type it...
Stacia said 10:14AM on 2-10-2009
The record company Paul alludes to is not Apple Corp -- it's EMI, which owns Apple Corp and Capitol Records. Apple Corp consists of Ringo, Paul and the widows, plus admins. Apple Corp and EMI do not get along...that's why Paul left EMI and joined Starbucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corp
And it's true -- iTunes isn't what the fans want. We want the remastering to be available.
Reply
Gazoobee said 6:46PM on 2-10-2009
What I don't understand is *why* EMI has a problem with Beatles stuff. someday when this is all over it would be interesting to find out WTF was going on behind the scenes.
For instance EMI was one of the first to go nonDRM (supposedly), but even though John Lennon's stuff is already on iTunes, it's DRM versions only for most of it. Even now, with the whole store DRM free, when I come across DRM stuff it's mostly EMI's.
For the record, I grew up listening to the Beatles and have listened to, owned and played everything they ever wrote on vinyl, CD etc., from about 1964 onwards (some multiple times), but even I think the Beatles are a bit "past it" now. I understand nostalgia, but looking forward is more rewarding. I find it hard to even listen to 80's music anymore for the most part, let alone 60's and 70's.
I'm still waiting for one obscure Lennon album to be released DRM free, but I can't see why anyone would really want to buy all this old stuff anymore. The Beatles haven't even existed as a group for more than 30 years. Being interested in the Beatles today is the same as waiting with baited breath for the re-release of some Glenn Miller tracks in 1970, when the Beatles were at their height.