Beatles' catalog coming online at long last?
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Mar 9th 2008 1:37PM
posted Mar 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]
Yea, cause this is what is keeping me from stocking anyway... Rofs
Wait, so you can't buy Beatles online? Seems as though legal mp3 downloads is definitely set to win.
"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
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..
Sigh... it keeps getting forgotten, but the main reason why this is excited (aside from the expanded availability) is that most fans assume that a digital release will coincide with a remastering of the back catalog.
I believe that the singles from the "Number 1s" album were remastered, and I know that the US albums were remastered in those boxsets, but the definitive releases (the British albums) have never been touched.
Yellow Submarine SONGtrack was remixed in true stereo. That's what I'd like to see happen to more of the catalog.
Pick up a copy of the bootleg "The Capitol Versions" for a German true stereo copy of Magical Mystery Tour and you'll see how much better it sounds.
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Yawn. So now we'll be able to grab lossy-compressed versions of Apple's notoriously poor (digital) remasters? Two wrongs don't make a right. Any true Beatles fan already has all of the Dr. Ebbetts', which I believe will never be topped by Apple as far as quality of sound goes! (vinyl rips, masterfully declicked/cleaned from superb originals)
I know tell me about it. I am so pissed. They couldn't get their stuff on SACD as had been rumored for a long time, but they got around to releasing their music on shitty MP3s and AACs. It just proves that people have no sense of quality in general.
The Beatles changed the planet!
That is a fact!
Before them the world was a completely different place. They changed everything from art to music, and clothing to attitudes. they were the single most influential thing that has happened to this planet since ..... ever. If you are not old enough to have lived before the Beatles, then you have absolutely no right to speak about them at all. 99.999% of the bullshit you call music today was only possible because the Beatles changed the mindset of absolutely everyone on the planet. Directly or indirectly, the Beatles had a played a bigger part in changing the world then even they realize.
Sigh when will people learn that its okay if someone has different musical taste. Personally I LOVE the beatles but then again friday night I was at a heavy metal/screamo show then last night I was at a rave listening to GOA/Psytrance & DnB from 10p-7a and this wensday I'm going to the opera in the city!
So really if someone doesnt like the beatles and they prefer rap or whatever thats no reason to trash talk them! Hell for the beatles generation their parents hated it just as with the Elvis generation. Grow up already people!
Don't care. I Bittorrented all 10 songs that I even remotely like, they lost a sale out of me years ago for being the asshats that they are. Fuck 'em
Frankly better than buying from iTunes. Besides the Beatles made enough money already. Pay for your smaller up and coming artists.
"BEATLES SUCK BLAH BLAH BLAH"
Yeah whatever. Go back to yo homiez dawg... dawg.
You know it's quite amazing how some people think that the world revolves around them. Arseholes.
If you don't have anything decent to say, then bugger off.
I think what annoys a lot of non-Boomers about the Beatles (and to a lesser degree other big 60s acts like the Rolling Stones) is just all the hype. Okay, granted, they were influential performers and some of their songs still resonate with members of younger generations. But let's face it, the primary reason Baby Boomers like them is that they remind them of their lost youth. Nothing wrong with that; as a thirtysomething GenXer I get all misty when I hear a song from my youth by The Police or even Journey, but it's not like I obsess about such groups.
Ahh... finally someone on here knows how to spell arse :)
@Jonathan Badger: As a fellow thirtysomething Gen X-er, I think you haven't actually listened to the Beatles' music if you don't get why they are as important as they are.
And I can't believe you actually had the nerve to mention Journey in the argument you were making... that's seriously disturbing.
@Jonathan Badger: As a fellow thirtysomething Gen X-er, I think you haven't actually listened to the Beatles' music if you don't get why they are as important as they are.
And I can't believe you actually had the nerve to mention Journey in the argument you were making... that's seriously disturbing.
No, I'm sorry, the correct answer is "Who gives a shit"
who gives a sh*t for the beatles on itunes....
who gives a sh*t for the beatles on itunes....
I really don't understand why people get so excited about The Beatles catalog being available online, legally. I've always been under the impression that real Beatles fans already have their catalog either on LPs or CDs. I do. And it's not like we're talking about some silly bopper group like the thousands we have on the radio today. So, why would also go for a heavily DRM-layered music file when you can just get the CD, play on your favorite computer music player, and encode it. The only people I expect to be excited about this should be McCartney's soon to be ex-wife and Yoko Ono.
Technically, you can say that about any album that is released both digitally and on CD. However, people want to buy their music online these days and you need to support that as an artist or record label. I have no interest in buying CDs since I can't tell the difference in audio quality so I want to see this happen along with anyone else still not represented online (AC/DC, I'm looking at you).
Kelmon:
I see your point, but I hope the lack of their availability online is not what's stopping you from buying the music in the first place.
The Beatles were the single greatest musical force ever to walk the face of the Earth. And they always will be.
Anyone who disagrees is an ignorant moron.
Simple as that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously dude, just take your Geritol and go take a nap. Your parents probably thought Glenn Miller was Jesus back from the dead. Tastes change over time. Get over yourself.
Hey James,
If you had a brain you'd realize that he is not talking about tastes, but about the Beatles being a musical force. Most of your stupid bullshit "artists" you listen to today were greatly influenced by the Beatles or influenced by artists who were influenced by the Beatles. The existence of most of the shit on the radio today is in large part due to the Beatles for better or worse.
James:
sadly your argument is flawed. the comment was that the beatles were, allegedly, the most influential artists ever. to say that tastes change over time misses the point. while it may be true to say that tastes have indeed changed, the argument that the beatles were the most influential artists ever does, at the very least, have merit. (look no further than album sales both past and present; websites devoted to beatles; endless articles written about this issue; etc). whether they were THE most influential has been debated endlessly before. i would think that the vast majority of people who gave any reasoned thought to this would at least concede that there may be some truth the claim, regardless of what your particular musical orientations are.
AC
what a lot of people don't realise is that the beatles did a number of cover versions, but noone remembered the originals because the beatles were so famous and had a distinctive sounds.
more loot for michael jackson. haha
I really can't see why people are so gah-gah over the thought of the Beetles on iTunes. I mean, if you're that big a fan of them , then it's likely that you already own their CDs, so why not just rip those CDs with iTunes? Voila, you have your Beetles on your iTunes. Why does everyone care if they're *sold* on iTunes?
I have nothing against the Beetles, I just don't get the whole Beetles/iTunes thing.
Because these Apple fans are stupid enough to buy them with lossy compression because it is approved by Jobs to do so. Anyone who really cares about music will buy the CD and rip to 320kbps at least and lossless if they truly care about music.
I don't know why some people commenting here dislike the Beatles, but something tells me you have not listened to a single song by them.
I'm an avid iTunes user, not fanboy mind you, nor do I have an iPod, but classic rock such as the Beatles is something I've been looking forward to for many years. And, the last thing I want to do is get their entire catalog off bittorrent. I'd much more prefer getting the albums off iTunes. Bands, singers, and music artists such as The Beatles deserve to have money spent on their albums-- no exceptions. Their music defined a generation and were practically a cultural phenomenon. I am 27 years old and I may not have lived during the time The Beatles were performing concerts and appearing on television and radio, but I have loved classic rock like The Beatles, as well as classic country, classic jazz, and big band for a very long time.
This is what music really is-- not the rap and hip-hop of our very spoiled and materialistic, as well as lackadaisical generation. Very few modern music artists and bands today I consider worth listening to. But, none, and I repeat none, will ever be able to repeat the musical talent of Elvis, The Beatles, Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole, Queen, and so on. It's like a forgotten generation that many seem to have ignored.
You're a dumb fuck for paying for lossy crap from iTunes when you can order actual CDs. In fact if you got off your ass long enough you could find used CDs for less than what Jobs wants to rape you for cut down psycho-acoustically compressed garbage.
Hey sr, sometimes it's just about convenience, not trying to scour for bargains. I don't use iTunes store myself, but I can see the appeal. I also do not buy CDs, sorry.
Yeah Raheem, you're part of the lazy fuck generation that will take convenience over quality. You guys deserve garbage since that's what you pine for. You can also order them new from Amazon without getting off your ass, but oh that would take too long. Oh my, the horror. Well, enjoy compressed garbage. Your generation will never know what recorded music should sound like since you would rather pay for music that has been analyzed, divided up into 14 sub bands and then a program determines from those sub bands what it thinks you won't hear and then throws it away and then reconstitutes it for your "listening pleasure." That shit isn't acceptable even if it were given away for free. Even the live music of these days is over amplified garbage played through sound reinforcement crap designed to play as loud as possible.
Sr, what's with the attitude, I don't think I was rude to YOU? Of course I could be, since you're clearly come kind of jobless know-it-all with way too much time on your hands. My convenience comment derives from being able to have the music on the iPhone/Pod straight away, not having to order a CD from Amazon and then wait. Some of us work for a living and therefore don't have all the time to hunt around for cheap stuff (we also have enough money not to worry about spending that extra 42 pence). Seriously, get over your unhealthy obsession with audio. If you need it spelling out - get your cock out of that CD. Rudeness breeds rudeness :)
"Sr" sounds like a foul-mouthed moron who never understood the loss-iness when music moved from analog (e.g., LPs) to CDs.
Guess what? His ears adjusted. Just as human ears did to the equal-tempered scale.
The same will happen - for worse, I agree, but nonetheless, for sure - to human ears vis-a-vis 192kpbs and original CD quality. Within a couple of generations, we won't know the difference.
Want great and legal high res version of Beatles songs. Burn them from your library CD collection (and use flac or oog).
Why would anyone care about expensive, inferior and locked music, when perfectly great versions (from your CD's ad elsewhere) exist. iTunes is the worst place to buy (really rent since they can DRM them away from you) music.
Don't bother explaining that to these lazy idiots, they are too stupid to see the reality of supporting DRM, lossy compression and fair use. They'd rather have "convenience." These morons actually pay someone to take their rights from them.
I won't go as far so to say that The Beatles suck... I will go so far as to say that they are not the be all end all of music.
Sgt. Pepper's is great, Revolver as well...
and then there's the wonderful hits like "Hard Day's Night" and "Love Me Do", oh yeah they're just fantastic! (sorry if that last bit was a little sarcastic)
I just don't see anything amazing about the Beatles. Their bassist was far from amazing and their drummer could have been replaced by a cheap metronome. John Lennon was a great lyricist, I will admit, and George Harrison was a beautiful guitarist that gets the least credit of all of them. Maybe it's the generation gap (I'm 19), that prevents me from understanding why they are so great - or maybe not....
Other bands from the Beatles era include Pink Floyd, The Grateful Dead, and The Doors... The first Grateful Dead LP (The Grateful Dead) and the first Pink Floyd studio album (Piper at the Gates of Dawn) were released in the same year as Sgt. Pepper's, and sound dramatically different (and, in my opinion) drastically better from the "prog rock" point of view and Jim Morrison is ridiculously better in his command of language then Lennon or McCartney ever were.
The Beatles were a musical force because their voices gave American girls (who had just lost their not-too-bad looking president) orgasms, not because their music was in any way revolutionary. I'm listening to a playlist right now that has 4 Beatles songs on it - which happen to be 4 Beatles songs I never hear played on the radio (For No One, Dear Prudence, Here Comes the Sun, Norwegian Wood). They are the only songs that I think are even comparable to the likes of Hendrix, or Gilmour, or Bonham, or Lesh, or Garcia.
That rant having been finished, any one who is a self respecting 'Beatles fan' has undoubtedly better masters of the albums in better quality. Plus, they've been talking about putting their catalog online for how long - no one should've waited this long to get it, considering that there are so many other (some better) sources.
Oh, and before someone gets their panties all in a bunch and says that I listen to Fall Out Boy, I preemptively say "F*ck You". I, as a self respecting musician, would have to commit ritual suicide for such a tragedy.
WHO?
No, not The Who. The Beatles! :P
"...and within minutes their entire catalog will be pirated."
I finished the title for you.
OH I NEEEED The Beatles in a lossy audio format in my iTunessss!
Lossless audio, what is that?
http://flac.sourceforge.net
I am told there are things called CDs, created in the 80s, putting to shame lossy audio formats such as MP3 and AAC, by offering lossless audio, too.
But it's all too complex for me.
I understand The Beatles are on them.
I understand one can rip with utmost ease to any format one wishes, now and forever. I understand one also gets printed material and cases along with the robust disc.
But I'm just not into it. I want to buy one or two songs only. Plus I want inferior audio and no resale value.
Plus The Beatles are too obscure to buy in the shops around my house. Nobody's heard of them!
Thank you Mr McCartney, for making my life even easier. At least, Beatles in 'digital'!!!!!
haha like other people have said, the Beatles catalog has been online for years, they just weren't making money from it. But i think this puts us one step closer to the ultimate goal... All Beatles Rock Band! Seriously, am i alone in wishing for this?
Who didn't know about this? The remasters have already been done.
I don't really care for the Beatles, but my beef was with the blogger for fanboy-ism. I'm aware that Engadget is a blog, not a journalistic publication, but honestly there is a limit on how much opinionated crap I can stomach from a low-end part-time tabloid journalist. If the news had involved, let's say, Pink Floyd- I wouldn't have let my rampant fandom be the defining characteristic of my blog entry.
Also, Pink Floyd was a greater influence on music that I care about than the Beatles. Who cares?
There are a handful of songs from the Beatles that I enjoyed. Mostly, it's standard fare pop tunes. Generic lyrics. Bland vocals. Their influence (no doubt significant) doesn't foster in me any kind of appreciation for bland pop music.
Finally I can stop fighting the urge to go to Usenet, Kazaa, Limewire or the local public library to load up on Beatles CDs.
Anyone know if Apple now has a record label?
I think called I records. maybe not.
where they are & how I can contact them?
you can hit me up at http://www.myspace.com/carynmoss
or write me at carynmoss@yahoo.com
thanks!
& Rock On!
Caryn Moss
Moss Entertainment
Anyone know if Apple now has a record label?
I think called I records. maybe not.
where they are & how I can contact them?
you can hit me up at http://www.myspace.com/carynmoss
or write me at carynmoss@yahoo.com
thanks!
& Rock On!
Caryn Moss
Moss Entertainment