|

Forget politics! The big news is that the Beatles are now available on iTunes!

I don’t own an iPod, but I have a teenage daughter who does, and I’m betting that she’ll be excited about the NEWS this morning that Apple Inc. is now selling Beatles songs at its iTunes store.

Here’s a collection of Apple ads touting the Beatles stuff:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXereeb9aVw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61mIWAAwxqk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YskYYpQ2q1E&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTI3urZ3XKg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ_3q5sD96Q&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Share:

5 Comments

  1. Milton Waddams

    Huge news! After all, The Beatles’ music has been unavailable on CDs and other physical media.

    Here’s a list of 10 Apple announcements that would have been better than this non-announcement.

    http://gizmodo.com/5691311/10-itunes-announcements-wed-have-preferred-to-the-beatles

  2. Your daughter excited by this news?

    Really, Pat?

    I doubt if the Beatles hold any relevance at all for listeners under the age of 25. You’ve got to remember, when we were 18 we lwouldn’t have been caught dead listening to music by Bix Beiderbecke, Frankie “Half-Pint” Jaxon, Sam Lanin, or Joe Venuti. That was “old folks music” and over 40 years old! The Beatles? They’re first album was released 47 years ago.
    If your daughter’s listening to The Beatles, it’s a safe bet she’s humoring you.

  3. hokumboy: My daughter has several Beatles albums, and I’ve seen other kids at her high school sporting Beatles sweatshirts.

    Granted, she also likes some music I consider awful, but that kind of thing is inevitable I suppose. On the other hand, she also likes the Stones, the Moody Blues, Paul Simon, Donovan, the Mamas and Papas, Fleetwood Mac, Bob Dylan, etc., etc. Her tastes are eclectic. She also plays three instruments herself.

    I don’t think comparisons of her generation with mine (or even yours) regarding musical tastes are valid. When I was 18, rock music was still fairly new. The music of 40 years before that was pre-Bing Crosby and pre-Glenn Miller. It was completely irrelevant. There weren’t even many recordings of it, and virtually none of it was played on the radio in my day. Hell, even the music of 10 years before I was 18 was almost completely irrelevant. There was some good stuff from Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra and a few other artists, but most of the other popular stuff was pablum.

    Today, it’s different. Music of the 1960s and ’70s is readily available on the air and is piped into supermarkets, malls, stores, restaurants, etc.

    It might interest you to know that the top-selling CD album of the first decade of this century is the Beatles album “1.” Forty years after their breakup, they are the most enduring act in the history of pop music. Yeah, the Stones are still around, and Tony Bennett can still warble after 60 years in the business, but the Beatles are still selling lots of recordings. And the deal with Apple will mean lots more sales.

  4. Memo to posters:
    don’t criticize Pat’s Beatles.

    My son (25) just laughed this afternoon when I asked if he thought the Beatles had any relevance today. He was glad to let me know that their music was old before he was born, and most hasn’t stood the test of time. Sure, we/some old farts listen to it, and buy it, but that’s ’cause we’re old farts. Any kids that buy it do so ’cause they’ve been told the Beatles were cool. Sorta like paying $20ºº for vinyl – not ’cause they can actually tell any improvements over CD or even mp3 – but because they’ve been told it’s cool. Retro is “in”. I was disparaged recently for listening to a certain artist on mp3 by a young “purist” because FLAC was “so much better”. Why? Because he was told FLAC was the new thing. This was a collection of jazz 78s from the 20’s – complete with all the surface noise one would expect from a 85 year old pieces of shellac. FLAC would have only emphasized that surface noise.

    If we wanted Beatles on our iPods, it would be there. We’d already have bought the CD and uploaded it to our pods. I have. Our (the Beatle) generation doesn’t buy songs from iTunes. We buy the CDs. We may convert them and put them on the pods but we still buy our CDs.

    Apple’s getting the rights to put them on iTunes does nothing but show that Apple’s won the 30 year feud. The only thing less relevant to today’s music scene is Cheap Trick’s Beatle cover band act in Vegas.

    Oh – generation wise – there’s less than 5 years difference in our ages., at the most.

  5. shawnnews

    Yet there are plenty of people who spent at least over $250 on Beatles remasters whehn they hit the CD store last year.
    It must be disheartening to some of the people really attempting to put out new, fresh music to realize that they still have to compete with 50, 40 and 30 year old bands for radio time.
    I saw Bob Dylan last year at the Metro Centre. He played about an hour and a half. I paid about $40 for a ticket. I saw Wilco in Chicago at UIC around the same time for less. They played a much longer show and it was superior in every aspect. I liked the Dylan show and I appreciated it that he played here. However, these old timers are making money on their names, not their current skills.
    I really think that if John Lennon hadn’t been shot and killed, the Beatles would’ve had a few reunions, put out some average albums, like the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys, and not have been considered legends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>