bicentennial_baby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-26-08 10:48 PM
Original message |
Ok...Why no Beatles songs on ITunes? Seriously! |
|
And no, not covers...Should I blame Michael Jackson? :wtf:
First the Smiths, and now this. x(
|
Richardo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-26-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message |
1. You need a little 'Hey Bulldog' don't you? |
|
I heard somewhere that's it's some kind of licensing deal.
And yes, blame Michael Jackson, even though I'm pretty sure he has nothing to do with it. :)
|
vixengrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-26-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message |
2. We could get lucky, yet-- |
johnnie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-26-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Michael Jackson has very little say-so about that |
|
It's a complicated process, but publisher's ownerships to songs in different than the rights to the songs and albums. And Sony is 50% owner of publishing rights also.
|
Skip Intro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-26-08 11:14 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It's always safe to blame Michael Jackson. |
driver8
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-26-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Ha! You've been looking for the same artists that I have!! |
|
Man, I would LOVE to have the Beatles' catalog on iTunes!!
|
TrogL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-27-08 01:53 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Should be there shortly |
|
They finally signed a contract.
|
TheMightyFavog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-27-08 05:55 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Didn't part of it have to do with... |
|
Some sort of trademark infringement dispute between Apple Records and Apple, Inc that dates back to the 70s or 80s? IIRC, was some agreement between the two companies that Apple, Inc promised that they would not get into the music business in exchange for Apple Records not making a big stink over trademark infringement.
|
LTR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-27-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message |
|
1. Lots and lots of red tape
2. They're remastering their catalog, which hasn't been done since the '80s. That's why the CDs currently available sound so mediocre. Compare their original releases to the sound quality of later compilations like "1" and "Love." And their early stuff is still available only in mono. I can't wait to hear how the stuff will sound remastered.
3. The Beatles are known to take their time with this stuff. It took forever for their music to come out on CD (1987). They're perfectionists, and it is probably unlikely that former producer George Martin will be able to help remaster their music, since he's in his early 80s, hard of hearing and basically retired. His son did much of the mixing on "Love," and did an amazing job. "Love" sounds absolutely stunning! Perhaps they should bring him in to do the job.
4. Four separate camps (Paul, Ringo, and the two widows) have to sign off on it. Sounds like they're all in agreement and want to put the music on iTunes.
5. The whole Apple vs. Apple lawsuit thingy (Initially, per their agreement with Apple Corps., Apple Computer would be prohibited from entering the music business).
6. The publishing rights to almost all of thier music are owned 50/50 by Michael Jackson and Sony/ATV, though I doubt there's too much of an issue there. Lots of cover versions are available on iTunes.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:02 PM
Response to Original message |