Beatles' catalog coming online at long last?

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]

[rock99rock @ Mar 9th 2008 1:44PM]

Yea, cause this is what is keeping me from stocking anyway... Rofs

[Tiptup300 @ Mar 9th 2008 2:35PM]

Wait, so you can't buy Beatles online? Seems as though legal mp3 downloads is definitely set to win.

[Chuckles McGee @ Mar 9th 2008 5:23PM]

"The best things in life are free
But you can keep them for the birds and bees
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want"

-Money (That's What I Want) 1959 The Beatles

[Nubaeus @ Mar 9th 2008 1:46PM]

The Beatles are garbage.






Now firmly click reply and explain how the Beatles don't suck.

[Daniel @ Mar 9th 2008 1:50PM]

Lol, so The Beatles are garbage by default, and we have to prove otherwise?

[Lo_Opy! @ Mar 9th 2008 1:51PM]

your kidding right? the beatles are THE BEST band that has ever been.

[yoshi @ Mar 9th 2008 2:14PM]

Give the kid a break. You can't expect too much from Justin Timberlake fans.

[Reader @ Mar 9th 2008 3:07PM]

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.

[jman315 @ Mar 10th 2008 12:21PM]

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.

[Gonzalo Garcia @ Mar 9th 2008 4:25PM]

agree. i cant understand why this beatles on itunes should matter to anyone

[Goatee Man @ Mar 9th 2008 4:35PM]

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.

[sr @ Mar 9th 2008 5:11PM]

Ha ha. Nice one. Trolling at its transparent best.

[MichaelD @ Mar 10th 2008 12:57PM]

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.

[ben Murray @ Mar 10th 2008 7:27AM]

@ 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.

[Alan @ Mar 10th 2008 11:17AM]

@ Nubaeus

Jerkoff

[Lo_Opy! @ Mar 9th 2008 1:49PM]

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.

[robothouse @ Aug 7th 2008 8:54PM]

Why not just add the album artwork yourself? I'm sure there's hi-res scans of the album covers available.

[Lo_Opy! @ Mar 9th 2008 2:12PM]

i already have artwork but you simply can not beat the artwork that apple provides.

[m @ Mar 9th 2008 2:30PM]

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.

[pop @ Mar 9th 2008 3:07PM]

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.

[Galley @ Mar 9th 2008 6:28PM]

You can download all of the album covers at www.thebeatles.com (721 x 721 resolution).

[Jimbo @ Mar 9th 2008 1:51PM]

...is he only selling it because of the recent divorce settlement that lost him millions


....I wonder.....?

[paragraph @ Mar 9th 2008 2:06PM]

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...

[lizzie @ Mar 9th 2008 5:27PM]

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.

[robotrock @ Mar 9th 2008 1:53PM]

"Greatest Works of Musical Art Ever Recorded"

eh? The fact you used capitals implies this is an official title...

[Mark Dean @ Mar 9th 2008 1:55PM]

The last time I checked, The Independant and The Telegraph were broadsheets.

Americans, when will they learn...

[Joshua Topolsky @ Mar 9th 2008 2:15PM]

Actually, most papers are sourcing this from the Daily Mail, which last time I checked, is a tabloid.

[Jevanzz @ Mar 9th 2008 2:51PM]

I read it in the Daily Mail whilst I was on the loo this morning ;)

[Adam @ Mar 9th 2008 4:08PM]

I used the Daily Mail after going to the loo also this morning...

[Mark Dean @ Mar 9th 2008 5:46PM]

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.

[Sim @ Mar 10th 2008 3:40PM]

The Mail's a tabloid in all but title typeface.

[paragraph @ Mar 9th 2008 2:04PM]

... 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...

[Conor McCann @ Mar 9th 2008 2:07PM]

37 years too late? How old is your MP3 player?

[m @ Mar 9th 2008 2:28PM]

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.

[Jamma @ Mar 9th 2008 2:25PM]

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.

[roole @ Mar 9th 2008 9:22PM]

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.

[james @ Aug 20th 2008 12:54PM]

"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

[Boggs @ Mar 9th 2008 2:06PM]

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.

[Lo_Opy! @ Mar 9th 2008 2:27PM]

im sorry that some of us have decent musical taste. you must be a cRAP fanboy huh?

[low tech @ Mar 9th 2008 7:11PM]

@Lo_Opy!

I like rap and the I enjoy the Beatles as well so there. The Black Album anyone?

[Alan @ Mar 10th 2008 11:12AM]

I think you mean The Grey Album.

[Raheem @ Mar 9th 2008 2:14PM]

This is great news. No doubt the Beatles naysayers are big fans of American Idol, Slipknot, or some other new age hack.

[Amrosorma @ Mar 9th 2008 2:27PM]

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

[Raheem @ Mar 9th 2008 4:17PM]

Of course! Does that mean Slipknot are better because they're in stereo? I'd rather have my ear drums removed.

[eggothewaffle @ Mar 9th 2008 10:34PM]

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.

[Raheem @ Mar 10th 2008 12:06AM]

Oh right, so completely not relevant to my comment. I regret nothing, then.

[stevo @ Mar 9th 2008 2:20PM]

Offer the collection in lossless apple!

[sr @ Mar 9th 2008 5:16PM]

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.

[stevo @ Mar 9th 2008 8:23PM]

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..

[Jacob B @ Mar 9th 2008 2:33PM]

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.