Beatles' catalog coming online at long last?
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted March 9th 2008 1:37PM
posted March 9th 2008 1:37PM
Word on the street (and by street, we mean mostly British tabloids) is that Paul McCartney's deal to sell the Beatles back-catalog is done, and the Greatest Works of Musical Art Ever Recorded will be appearing on the iTunes store "within months." Of course, we've been hearing whispers about this for what seems like a million years, and since both Apple Corps and Apple are delivering "no comment" and "rumor and speculation" responses on the topic, we won't get too excited. Still, there does seem to be some serious movement on this front, with everyone and their mother saying the lot is to be sold any day now for around $400 million -- which is no small sum. We will, of course, keep you abreast of any developments which will lead to you stocking your music players with the Fab Four's work.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
The Beatles are garbage.
Now firmly click reply and explain how the Beatles don't suck.
Lol, so The Beatles are garbage by default, and we have to prove otherwise?
your kidding right? the beatles are THE BEST band that has ever been.
Give the kid a break. You can't expect too much from Justin Timberlake fans.
I don't care for them, but I wouldn't go as far to say they suck. You just can't call out the Beatles like that. Even if you don't like them you have to accept their influence on the world of music.
It's ok, this kid obviously just gets off to every email he gets cause it makes him feel popular. Here's another 'response' email for you kid, I'm sorry your parents never gave you that attention you deserve.
Now just go crank up your fall out boy, cause they totally get you. It'll be ok.
agree. i cant understand why this beatles on itunes should matter to anyone
Explain how The Beatles don't suck? You're kidding, right?
Okay, ask yourself this: what was music before The Beatles like? Now, what was music *after* The Beatles like? Bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?
They were, without a doubt, the single most influential band of all time (not to mention the greatest), and without their music we wouldn't even be close to where we are today. There would be none of the music you listen to today -- there would be no Foo Fighters, no Modest Mouse, no Oasis, no Nirvana, no U2 -- nothing. Even all the crappy bands you probably listen to wouldn't exist. The Beatles invented the music we listen to today.
Not to mention the fact that Paul McCartney and John Lennon were the greatest songwriting duo ever.
The only people who don't agree with this simple fact are kids nowadays who listen to Fall Out Boy and Linkin Park and all that crap and think it's cool to say The Beatles suck. What they don't realize is that any band you've ever listened to was inspired by The Beatles. If you're ever lucky enough to meet one of the musicians you admire, ask them about The Beatles. And be sure to tell them you think that they suck.
Don't ever insult The Beatles.
Ha ha. Nice one. Trolling at its transparent best.
You'd best recant, before you find yourself in Davy Jones' Locker.
In all seriousness, does this guy even deserve a reply? (yeah, and I know I replied too) I don't personally care for the Beatles, but you can't deny their influence...and demanding a logical rebuttal to an illogical flame is just stupid. I think we've all been had...trolls feed off of negative votes and comments.
@ Goatee Man
Now before i say this i must point out i am in no way suggesting the Beatles suck and that their influence and talent is obvious
However... if they hadn't existed would someone else have come along and done something along the same lines I wonder... after all it's easier to innovate earlier.
@ Nubaeus
Jerkoff
sory to say but the Beatles catalog has been on line for years.
I also believe anyone who like the beatles has already purchase there CDs and I don't see any reason for them to buy the DRM MP3's today.
Actually, I have the entire Beatles catalog on vinyl. I don't feel like buying CDs or recording the vinyl to my hard drive and then having to deal with editing tracks, etc.
So, I could buy the CDs, or I could wait to see if these are DRM-free MP3 files. And, since the Beatles are released on EMI, and EMI's entire catalog on iTunes has gone DRM-free. And the downloads will be cheaper than the CDs. Works for me.
Plus, I know my mother will want to know how to use iTunes at that point. I have to assume millions of baby boomers will do the same.
yay! finally i will have high quality album art! thats the only reason i want the beatles on itunes is for the album art since i already have all of their cd's in my library.
Why not just add the album artwork yourself? I'm sure there's hi-res scans of the album covers available.
i already have artwork but you simply can not beat the artwork that apple provides.
actually, i find that much of the apple artwork is crooked, off-center, etc. only for a brand new release will you get a crisp, clean, digital image. if you're so into album art, you can get a dozen different utilities that will scan your library and automatically download artwork from amazon--which is, i assure you, just as good. i've spent more time on this than i care to admit.
since you seem so intent on drinking the cool aid, i hope you'll at least buy only 1 song from each album, and then drag and drop.
there's a widget called amazon album art;
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/music/amazonalbumart.html
it'll find and save album art from amazon into itunes. when apple can't find it, this usually can.
You can download all of the album covers at www.thebeatles.com (721 x 721 resolution).
...is he only selling it because of the recent divorce settlement that lost him millions
....I wonder.....?
That, and/or the fact that he sounds like a dying cat and can't actually use what little musical talent he has to make money...
The divorce settlement barely put a dent in his fortune...and besides, he doesn't own the copyrights to any of the Beatles music. It wouldn't do him any monetary good.
"Greatest Works of Musical Art Ever Recorded"
eh? The fact you used capitals implies this is an official title...
The last time I checked, The Independant and The Telegraph were broadsheets.
Americans, when will they learn...
Actually, most papers are sourcing this from the Daily Mail, which last time I checked, is a tabloid.
I read it in the Daily Mail whilst I was on the loo this morning ;)
I used the Daily Mail after going to the loo also this morning...
Josh, your obviosuly not English so here are some facts:
1) The Daily Mail is in a Tabloid Form, but not style wise - It is written for the Lower Mddle Class.
2) You contradict yourself by linking to The Indepentant
3) English Broadsheets Style papers are The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardiana, The Independant and the Financial Times. Real tabloids are papers written for the lower class such as The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Dail Star, etc.
The Mail's a tabloid in all but title typeface.
... not to rain on everyone's parade...
but this is about 37 years too late... hell even if you want to give credit to the fact that a good majority of Beatles fans today will buy ANYTHING to do with them this is still a few years later than anyone would care...
The Zep deal was better than this... because Zep isn't crap...
yes, i said it... the Beatles suck... get over it... some people like coke, some people like pepsi (and those people are wrong), it's how things are...
37 years too late? How old is your MP3 player?
go ask jimmy page what he thinks of the beatles, kid. the beatles were a formative influence on every genre, across the board, from heavy metal, to country, to electronica. really, you're only betraying your own musical ignorance.
Zep are better, A LOT better imo, but the beatles are still great, and many prefer them. They sure as hell aren't wrong for thinking so.
The people who are wrong are the sheep that think Rihanna has any musical talent, and that think that Umbrella is a good song.
Does it occur to you that there are millions and millions of people (like me, for instance), who like The Bealtes and Zep about equally?
That someone needs to put down another person's preference in order to elevate his own is always pathetic. It reeks of an inferiority complex of some sort.
"Beatles suck! I hate you!! I hate the band you like!!!" - red vs blue "New York Film Festival" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1389474113486697064&q=red+vs+blue+film+festival&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Really, the Beatles are quite bad.
I wouldn't have felt the need to mention it if this particular blogger wasn't a sad fanboy.
Try to keep that kind of thing to a minimum.
im sorry that some of us have decent musical taste. you must be a cRAP fanboy huh?
@Lo_Opy!
I like rap and the I enjoy the Beatles as well so there. The Black Album anyone?
I think you mean The Grey Album.
The only reason Sir Paul hasn't released it already is that it would of been on his income while he was getting divorced and then that would of cost him even more.
This way the sale on iTunes will fund the cost of the settlement and it will not affect his wallet at all.
Would have. WOULD HAVE!!!
Or would've, if you'd rather.
This is great news. No doubt the Beatles naysayers are big fans of American Idol, Slipknot, or some other new age hack.
What a perfectly valid and clever thing to say!
Right.
Anyway, maybe now those poor iPhone+Bluetooth headphone users will have actual mono music to listen to :D
Of course! Does that mean Slipknot are better because they're in stereo? I'd rather have my ear drums removed.
No, the point is that iPhone can only output mono audio via Bluetooth.
People who take mainstream music so seriously really need to take a long hard look at their life and aesthetics.
Oh right, so completely not relevant to my comment. I regret nothing, then.
Offer the collection in lossless apple!
Why, because you HAVE to buy it from Apple only and no one else? Get on Amazon, buy the CDs and get your own Lossless and have physical backups as a bonus while you're at it. Get them used at a used record store for even better value.
No of course not, rather so that someone of waffles can buy it, rip it, and up it.. c'mon you think I don't know better than that? this is engadget after all..