McCartney "pretty sure" The Beatles will go digital next year

Well, it looks like the long saga of The Beatles slow transition to digital downloads could finally be nearing a close, at least according to one source that has a fairly big say in the matter. According to Reuters, Paul McCartney recently told Billboard that "It's all happening soon," adding that, "Most of us are all sort of ready. The whole thing is primed, ready to go -- there's just maybe one little sticking point left, and I think it's being cleared up as we speak, so it shouldn't be too long." McCartney then went on to get a bit more specific, saying that, "It's down to fine-tuning, but I'm pretty sure it'll be happening next year, 2008." Of course, there's no indication as to exactly how The Beatles' catalog will be distributed in digital form, although there's certainly be no shortage of rumors on that front.

[farfisa @ Nov 16th 2007 1:00PM]

I wonder how Yoko likes being called a "sticking point"...

[L.M.L.Y.P @ Nov 16th 2007 1:02PM]

hahaha

[RyanTV @ Nov 16th 2007 1:08PM]

The Beatles have already gone digital. Go look on bittorrent.

[KaiserW @ Nov 16th 2007 2:30PM]

Agreed, their music has been available in mp3 format for a decade now. maybe they just found out about the "interwebs"

[NG @ Nov 16th 2007 1:22PM]

Paul, did you ask John yet?

[crescentdavid @ Nov 16th 2007 1:23PM]

This will be huge for the competing companies who will then trumpet their success, but for all intents and purposes, $ir Paul'$ $trategy has rendered it all a moot point. The Beatle's last Album was "Let It Be," released in 1970. The "lucky" corporation winning the Beatle's franchise will make money ... just not enough to justify the expenditure. Of course ... perhaps cross merchandising will be allowed and we'll see reams of new "official videos," and "genuine, beatle-approved dolls & drinking cups." All you need is love, indeed.

Assuming you were 18 in 70, you'd be 55. So the nostalgia crowd is really going to line up to purchase enough music to justify all this hoopla re: a group that hadn't recorded anything new in 37 years? Or that an aging population of 55+ year olds is suddenly going to go digital on the marketplace?

[Ryan Trevisol @ Nov 16th 2007 1:29PM]

Right, cause people only buy music that was recorded after they turned 18. Or even after they were born. Sure. Heck. I'm 25 and I have several Beatles albums. But I don't have the White Album. I would buy it in digital format if it were available.

[CraigJ @ Nov 16th 2007 2:10PM]

So, I guess I shouldn't be listening to that Led Zepplin album that was recoded when I was 4, huh?

[Beau @ Nov 16th 2007 4:30PM]

Wow... The Beatles are far and away my favorite band. And I was born 6 years after they broke up.

[Carbonize @ Nov 16th 2007 1:23PM]

Does Michael Jackson still own the rights to the entire Beatles catalogue? I remember he bought it back when he was friends with Paul McCartney and thats what split them apart.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Nov 16th 2007 1:27PM]

MJ and Sony jointly own "most" of the beatles catalog. As far as I know, MJ still is part of that deal.

[Derbeste @ Nov 16th 2007 4:22PM]

From my understanding, MJ was forced to sell the rights to the beatles to Paul after his legal and financial troubles (Don't molester kids people).

That's what I'd heard anyway. I mean....how else would Paul have a "big say"?

[yoshi @ Nov 16th 2007 5:31PM]

MJ essentially purchased the rights to the lyrics. He did not purchase the rights to the orignal recordings. Those are still owned by Apple Records. MJ/Sony/whoever has no rights to those at all.

[Nate @ Nov 16th 2007 1:24PM]

At this point, who owns The Beatles catalog?

[Charles @ Nov 16th 2007 1:30PM]

How many true Beatle fans haven't already ripped down their own CD's for free at their own preferred bitrate and DRM free? I did that years ago and don't understand the constant hullabaloo about having the Beatles online. I would be far more interested in buying completely remastered and spiffed up CD's of their catalog, say from "Revolver" through "Let It Be". Although it does seem a little much to have bought it on record, then tape, followed by CD, only to buy it AGAIN on "better" CD's. But hey, it's the Beatles...

[Steve @ Nov 16th 2007 3:10PM]

That's the hope, and I think it will be the reality. I have a copy of the White Album on CD, but I've actually held off on buying any of the rest, since it's been a common assumption that a digital release will include a remastering of the original albums. If I'm correct, the US versions that were recently released as box sets are remastered, but the definitive UK versions have been withheld for the longest.

[tekdroid @ Nov 16th 2007 6:09PM]

Charles @ Nov 16th 2007 1:30PM

How many true Beatle fans haven't already ripped down their own CD's for free at their own preferred bitrate and DRM free?
---------
LOL, exactly. Best lossless sound, DRM-free, rip to any flavour-of-the-month format without generational copy losses coming from converting from one lossy format to another.

And last I checked, CDs were digital.

McCartney should have said "next year we'll be offering you lower-quality files over the interweb"

[Blah @ Nov 16th 2007 1:34PM]

If it isn't on iTunes, then they aren't doing it right...

[Brodie @ Nov 16th 2007 1:54PM]

Of course the Beatles are going digital.... isn't Paul going to have to shell out like 60 mil to his gimp ex-wife? That money's gotta come from somewhere....

Pete best is the most excited about this as he probably hasnt seen a royalty check in years. He'll finally be able to afford a nice dinner at old country buffet.

[RyanTV @ Nov 16th 2007 3:13PM]

Probably why it's been delayed for so long. He doesnt want half of that revenue stream to go to her.

[Arthur Nonamiss @ Nov 16th 2007 4:34PM]

60 mil? My friend, you're not even close. He'll be lucky if he loses 10 times that...

[Julian Bond @ Nov 16th 2007 2:12PM]

"there's no indication as to exactly how The Beatles' catalog will be distributed in digital form"

Via AllOfMp3, surely? Oh. Wait...

[Nubaeus @ Nov 16th 2007 2:26PM]

The last I checked someone on a computer ~10 years ago with 128Mb of ram on a P3 used their state of the art cd drive to "rip" the beatles songs onto their computer and share them on the brand new software technology known as Napster.

Sooo they're only 10 years behind...what's the rush?

[Rik @ Nov 16th 2007 3:52PM]

The Beatles are so popular, they can actually be used for platform promotion. So Paul is just looking around, seeing who offers most... It's kinda sad to see them trying to milk it for every penny it's worth.

[Matt @ Nov 16th 2007 5:46PM]

Umm... the Beatles "went digital" when their music was first available on CD back in the 80's. And iPod users have been able to enjoy the Beatles since... the first iPod was created. I know I'm being pedantic, but you really mean that their music will finally be available with lossy encoding and annoying, crippling encryption some time in 2008. I don't see what the big deal is... 95% of what people put on iPod's was ripped from (someone's) CD's. It's not like the Beatles are cranking out any new tunes lately, so the convenience factor isn't all that great. If you like the Beatles, you probably own their CD's and have put them on your iPod, no?

I think that what this really represents is one of the last symbolic milestones that validates the internet as the legitimate heir to the music distribution kingdom.

[captain underpants and the bringdown gang @ Nov 16th 2007 9:25PM]

Macworld 08.

[Arjen @ Nov 17th 2007 8:53AM]

The Beatles' catalogue has never been truly digitized. Not the way father & son Martin did it for Beatles Love. Now, a sound quality like thát would be really worthwhile...
So hopefully the digitizing for the Beatles Love project (they digitize all the important stuff) will be used.

[Tim @ Nov 17th 2007 10:05AM]

Isn't paul dead? just kidding.

I like the idea of changing formats to target a new generation. It would be a shame for the beatles to die just because the newest generation can't play the record on their ipods or zunes.