Apple Finally Snares The Beatles Catalog?

DeathPrincess said:
If you're talking about using the 5 pentatonic notes and the same 12 note scale then sure, music has been the same (in the west) since forever. But if you think that every single kind of music is identical, then on that part we'd have to dissagree. Unless genres don't exsist.

The beatles is old shit. Its 40 year+ old shit. They should be irrelevent and forgotten by now, but unfortunately the music "industry" happened and plugged in the life support time and time again because it's profitable for them to do so.
Click to expand...

When can we ban the trolls?

Whats next, are you going to try and tell me that Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan weren't the greatest guitarist's ever?
 
Dev1ant said:
He's not retarded. The Beatles suck compared to music nowadays. We have Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, Usher, Kesha, ...like come on. These are amazing artists who produce music that's obviously way above the league of The Beatles.
Click to expand...

LOL

I actually laughed out loud, like seriously... I am guessing (hoping) that was sarcastic, if so you win...

this thread is so full of fail it hurts...

the reason people still listen to the Beatles is because most new crap is just that... crap... and the football stadium full of people I went to go see Paul McCartney in is a testament that people still care/enjoy the music
 
Animal Mother said:
Whats next, are you going to try and tell me that Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan weren't the greatest guitarist's ever?
Click to expand...

that was like... more than 10 years ago! we have made HUGE strides in music since then!

hell guitars now have 5 plastic buttons instead of strings! how awesome is that!!! :D
 
Cobalt35 said:
So we should continually revive and rehash their music because they were an influence?
Click to expand...
No; we should listen to it because it's great music. Because it was a 7-year total ride that went from basic teen pop to psychedelia, avant-garde, proto hard rock, and everything inbetween. Because the music is timeless.
 
Animal Mother said:
When can we ban the trolls?

Whats next, are you going to try and tell me that Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan weren't the greatest guitarist's ever?
Click to expand...

You mispelt someone with differing opinion.

I have no problem with either of them, I don't listen to them. But you missed the point. The problem wasn't with the band or their songs or whatever. It's with the continuing and perpetuation of selling old music with a preference over new music. Sure its nice to sell stuff, but you can't complain theres nothing new when theres no profitability in risk. Same for games, films, books whatever. Why try something risky when you can sell the same well worn material and know it will sell. The music industry needs some kind of stimulus and this kind of activity isn't exactly profitable in the right direction. Thats what I have a problem with.
 
I like some of the Beatles stuff and I don't cream every time I hear them. I don't think many people supporting them do either, they just like them (or respect them). I can't possibly understand (EVER) someone criticizing another persons taste in music unless it somehow influences them on a personal level. What a basic, childish thing to do. The Beatles were a major part of the British invasion and without them who knows what modern music would be like. You don't have to worship them, but don't be a fuckface every time they are mentioned in a news article.

The fact that you seem to think everyone should love the music of their time and culture has quite a few implications. I don't want to enumerate them here, because I could probably write a pretty long paper about it, but you should think before saying stupid things.

As for the news, I look forward to these expanding libraries. It seems important to have as much redundancy as possible when it comes to preserving (and sharing/spreading) any and all music.
 
DeathPrincess said:
You mispelt someone with differing opinion.

I have no problem with either of them, I don't listen to them. But you missed the point. The problem wasn't with the band or their songs or whatever. It's with the continuing and perpetuation of selling old music with a preference over new music. Sure its nice to sell stuff, but you can't complain theres nothing new when theres no profitability in risk. Same for games, films, books whatever. Why try something risky when you can sell the same well worn material and know it will sell. The music industry needs some kind of stimulus and this kind of activity isn't exactly profitable in the right direction. Thats what I have a problem with.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss your point, just pointing out that your point is pointless, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix never had this problem, and they were radically different than anything else that was popular at the time.
 
Look- I love macs, I love my iphone- but I don't buy music on itunes, especially music I care about! Can someone please explain to me where the added value is in buying it through itunes? CD is a better quality sound, and I can rip it anyway i want- what is the deal with itunes music? Give me a musical quality equal to bluray lossless and I will bite- same thing for itunes movies- until there is a superior quality option to bluray I am not interested.
 
Animal Mother said:
I didn't miss your point, just pointing out that your point is pointless, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix never had this problem, and they were radically different than anything else that was popular at the time.
Click to expand...

Music is a background to events which make it memorable.

But anyway, the landscape of then and now is totally different. At that time there was not catalogs of music and an industrialized music industry making it more easily availible than everything else. Release a song then and youd compete against the few artists around that week, there was new mediums emerging like TV, and teenage culture, which was very centrilized around a few artists getting lots of publicity. Release a song now and you compete against hundreds of artists and every song that has ever been released in a huge mass of voices. If either of them had been around now, they would have tried to sell their material in a crowded marketplace where older more popular artists undercut anything they did. Go to a shop and collections and re-issue albums are much cheaper than new material.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Music is a background to events which make it memorable.

But anyway, the landscape of then and now is totally different. At that time there was not catalogs of music and an industrialized music industry making it more easily availible than everything else. Release a song then and youd compete against the few artists around that week, there was new mediums emerging like TV, and teenage culture, which was very centrilized around a few artists getting lots of publicity. Release a song now and you compete against hundreds of artists and every song that has ever been released in a huge mass of voices. If either of them had been around now, they would have tried to sell their material in a crowded marketplace where older more popular artists undercut anything they did. Go to a shop and collections and re-issue albums are much cheaper than new material.
Click to expand...

Lol, someone needs a history lesson...
 
DeathPrincess said:
I have no problem with either of them, I don't listen to them. But you missed the point. The problem wasn't with the band or their songs or whatever. It's with the continuing and perpetuation of selling old music with a preference over new music. Sure its nice to sell stuff, but you can't complain theres nothing new when theres no profitability in risk. Same for games, films, books whatever. Why try something risky when you can sell the same well worn material and know it will sell. The music industry needs some kind of stimulus and this kind of activity isn't exactly profitable in the right direction. Thats what I have a problem with.
Click to expand...


That doesn't sound much like

DeathPrincess said:
The beatles is old shit. Its 40 year+ old shit. They should be irrelevent and forgotten by now, but unfortunately the music "industry" happened and plugged in the life support time and time again because it's profitable for them to do so.
Click to expand...


You come off hostile and then try to backtrack to some argument about the music industry. Why should I not listen to old music? Two of my favorite bands of all time are The Clash and The Ramones. Neither are super technical and both are old. However they are also awesome and I don't really care for the vast majority of new music (with exceptions, obviously).


Also saying The Beatles were the Beiber of their time shows that you really haven't listened to much of their music.
 
MattyC said:
Also saying The Beatles were the Beiber of their time shows that you really haven't listened to much of their music.
Click to expand...

1: popular <pop music>:

a: of or relating to popular music
b: of or relating to the popular culture disseminated through the mass media
 
DeathPrincess said:
You mispelt someone with differing opinion.

I have no problem with either of them, I don't listen to them. But you missed the point. The problem wasn't with the band or their songs or whatever. It's with the continuing and perpetuation of selling old music with a preference over new music. Sure its nice to sell stuff, but you can't complain theres nothing new when theres no profitability in risk. Same for games, films, books whatever. Why try something risky when you can sell the same well worn material and know it will sell. The music industry needs some kind of stimulus and this kind of activity isn't exactly profitable in the right direction. Thats what I have a problem with.
Click to expand...
Did you ever stop and think that maybe there is something to the music, books, films, and games that is completely lost in the modern era? Great music, great books, great films, and great games (to a lesser extent) transcend eras and are routinely re-discovered by future generations. If new generations were not picking up on the classics then they would no longer be produced, marketed, and sold.
 
Tolyngee said:
If you truly think the music of today is only influenced by the music of yesterday, then you truly are ignorant.
Click to expand...
Your argument was that a large portion of modern music is just a "re-hash" of music made hundreds of years ago and that there is no truly "new" music. And I beg to differ. Find evidence of anything which largely resembles Japanese noise music produced before 1900 and I'll happily concede my point.
 
If you don't like the Beatles, you don't have a soul. That's all there is to it. :)
 
Dev1ant said:
He's not retarded. The Beatles suck compared to music nowadays. We have Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, Usher, Kesha, ...like come on. These are amazing artists who produce music that's obviously way above the league of The Beatles.
Click to expand...

If they ever start producing music like the Beatles again, I might start buying again.
Most of what is called music now days, is not even worth the few megabytes of space it would take on my drive.
 
the only thing I dislike more than the Beatles are all the pretentious ass people who say that I have horrible taste in music because I don't like the Beatles.
 
quackduck said:
the only thing I dislike more than the Beatles are all the pretentious ass people who say that I have horrible taste in music because I don't like the Beatles.
Click to expand...

Same here, i'm not saying their music is shit, but it's just not my cup of tea.
 
Only 26 and have been listening to The Beatles since the first time the awesomeness of Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite graced my ears.

This thread is hilarious on so many levels
 
Dev1ant said:
He's not retarded. The Beatles suck compared to music nowadays. We have Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, Usher, Kesha, ...like come on. These are amazing artists who produce music that's obviously way above the league of The Beatles.
Click to expand...

Okay, well here's the way I listen to things:

Katy Perry - 5.5/10
Taylor Swift - 4.5/10
Justin Beaver - 1/10
Usher - 2/10
Kesha - 2.5/10

The Beatles - 9/10

Again, nothing new has been done in music as far as I know, that would make any of these "artists" better.

What, has science developed better vocal chords? No. The Beatles are people, Katy Perry and Usher are people. No difference.
 
krotch said:
Try this out. Ask anyone under 25 years old, who the Beatles and name a song or the 4 members. See if they even knew that there was a total 6 members.
Click to expand...

I'm 26. can't name a single member or a song. or how many members. I think I've seen a pic though, they got really goofy looking hair yeah? lol
 
Dev1ant said:
He's not retarded. The Beatles suck compared to music nowadays. We have Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, Usher, Kesha, ...like come on. These are amazing artists who produce music that's obviously way above the league of The Beatles.
Click to expand...

I hope you are being sarcastic, sir :p


Anyway, honestly I can't believe some of the stuff I read in this thread. While I'm no fan of The Beatles, they have achieve success that almost no modern artist today will ever achieve. To say that they produce bad music is just ignorant.

And what's wrong with selling their music to the younger generations today? No one is forcing anyone to buy, if someone wants to buy their music, I don't see anything wrong with that. Who are we to say these kids should not be able to buy music from the 60s 70s 80s?
 
Should just lock this thread.

There are a lot of people here who don't appreciate music. Actual, real music. And, a lot of people who don't appreciate classic rock and pop music that made an impact in music history. The Beatles are as significant to music as Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra were.

You don't have to like The Beatles and you don't have the right to insult or belittle another person just because of their taste in music. That's just being ignorant. And, being ignorant is an attitude equivalent to a racist jerk from the days of segregation.

The pop music of today is, in all honesty, crap. Music isn't like it used to be.

Again, just too many ignorant posters in this thread. Hornet said it best:
Hornet said:
I hope you are being sarcastic, sir

Anyway, honestly I can't believe some of the stuff I read in this thread. While I'm no fan of The Beatles, they have achieve success that almost no modern artist today will ever achieve. To say that they produce bad music is just ignorant.

And what's wrong with selling their music to the younger generations today? No one is forcing anyone to buy, if someone wants to buy their music, I don't see anything wrong with that. Who are we to say these kids should not be able to buy music from the 60s 70s 80s?
Click to expand...

And, to call people old is insulting and derogatory just because of the music they listen to? That's bullsh*t.

I'm 30 years old, born in 1980. I listen to Country, Jazz & Big Band, Oldies, Classical, and Japanese Pop. Does that make me old? F*ck no. Grow a brain and be more open-minded for god sakes.

I appreciate music from the 80s, 90s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. I dislike a lot of the music in the past decade-plus, with the exception being a relative few-- Norah Jones, Vanessa Carlton, Jewel, Dixie Chicks, Angela Aki, The Brilliant Green, L'arc en Ciel.

I still enjoy listening to old Country from the 60s and 70s. I enjoy Elvis and The Beatles, Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra. I listen to almost everything except Rap and Hip-Hop. R&B from the 1970s is better than the R&B of today.

If you don't enjoy The Beatles or any music of the past for that matter, just stay quiet.

Enough said.
 
nightwalker said:
Same here, i'm not saying their music is shit, but it's just not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

So far, only heard of one person being under 25 who stated they like the Beatles and another who says their 2 year old, who's had it thrown at them by their parents, asking for a couple songs. Of course, by the time the 2 year old is in HS, they won't even care whatsoever about the Beatles. Why? Cause they want to be cool like everyone else. Hence the 2 year old liking Justin Beiber. Liking Beatles is just to make their parents happy.

octoberasian said:
Should just lock this thread.

There are a lot of people here who don't appreciate music. Actual, real music. And, a lot of people who don't appreciate classic rock and pop music that made an impact in music history. The Beatles are as significant to music as Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra were.

You don't have to like The Beatles and you don't have the right to insult or belittle another person just because of their taste in music. That's just being ignorant. And, being ignorant is an attitude equivalent to a racist jerk from the days of segregation.
Click to expand...

Contradictory ass contradicts.
Contradictory ass explains that they are ignorant.
Contradictory ass explains that being ignorant is equivalent to being a racist jerk.
 
Everyone in here needs to CALM DOWN! :rolleyes:

There are many different genres out there from many different eras. They all (or most) have their good and bad points. People should judge music based on the lyrics, talent, and technical proficiency of the artists, not if they like the music. Do I like classical composers, the Beatles, Elvis, Johnny Cash, etc? Not particularly, with a few exceptions. Do I appreciate what they may have done for music? Sure. Will I ever listen to them on a normal basis? Hell no.

Personally, I listen to a range of music, from Celtic Woman (Celtic) to Epica (Symphonic Metal) to Dark Tranquility (Melodic Metal) to Disturbed (Rock) to trance. I think what Death Princess was trying to get (and failing utterly due to less than stellar tactfulness :p ) at is that the music industry and popular American/Western culture becomes obsessed with certain types of music. This music floods the media and tends to push out the other less popular genres. Few Americans appreciate the quality of many metal bands due to stereotypes and lack of support from the music industry. It doesn't become popular because it isn't popular. While there's nothing inherently wrong with pop music, having it stuffed down our throats detracts from good music that may be made in the future. Whether the music is from the present, 40 years ago or 400 years ago, we ought to listen to it, appreciate it, and then decide what you like. Just be careful to not snuff out the new talent and genres NOW because you are too busy with the music from 40 years ago. People in here talk about the fact that the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix (Elvis is another classic example) helped to define music today. Sure, I'll buy that. But don't overlook the people today who are defining the music of the future.

Now go listen to what you actually like to listen to and leave each other alone. ;)
 
I love some of The Beatles songs. That said, if they come to iTunes that would mean nothing to me. Until I can buy a flac song or album from iTunes, I will never be satisfied.
 
Isn't it true that Steve-o Jobs had gone on LSD and found some record with apple logo and had a vision of aliens sending him a message to become the one savior of mankind?

Exciting news for him for sure.

I really like the music. They did invent quite some processes when recording it as well and those records really are good products.

Beaver and all the other kiddie music comes to Apple to plea them for iTunes prime ad space. With The Beatles it was the other way around.
 
The reference to "Old Shit" isn't I think ment to be derogatory, give the poor guy a break.

My take on it, meh, sick of The Beatles, my wife loves them, but I would rather listen to The Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Yardbirds, Queen, hell just about any other 60's-70's group.

Yes, The Beatles were a boy band, come to the point, they were THE Boy Band, but at least for their sake they grew out of that phase and later on made some good music.
 
cthulhuiscool said:
dear sir, whether you be trolling or serious please cease and desist. That is all.
Click to expand...

I'm really trying to care about this, but completely failing.

I know the Beatles were hugely influential in the development of pop-music, but actually listening to their music? No thanks.

The singers are often not in key, and the instruments often sound messy, uncoordinated and not fully in time. It often makes me want to cringe.
 
Dev1ant said:
He's not retarded. The Beatles suck compared to music nowadays. We have Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, Usher, Kesha, ...like come on. These are amazing artists who produce music that's obviously way above the league of The Beatles.
Click to expand...

You only listed one name thats even halfway talented. Taylor Swift. In my opinion. To say the Beatles suck is your opinion and highly subjective. Way above the Beatles league ? Put down the crack pipe and step away ..... :D

The top 3 Bands of all time with the most platinum albums are The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Rush. A certain ex member of the Beatles, you may have heard of him .... Paul McCartney. Is one of the most prolific and successful composers of all time. To say those "artists " you listed are way above the league of the Beatles is either your uniformed opinion or you just have no clue about music from the last 30 or so years, maybe both.

When I was young couldn't stand the Beatles much. As I grew older I started appreciating many more types of music including the Beatles. Some of their music was lame, some was dare I say brilliant.

Their music will be around for many, many more years. Music is eternal, it never goes out of style.

Kudos to Apple, it must have cost Steve a damn pretty penny to get access to that library.
 
The Beatles are not famous because of their music, it's because they were boy pop band with a shit load of drama and one of them got shot and good riddance, john lennon was a complete douche.
 
weuntouchable said:
They never released an album with any members outside of the John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

Anyone who doesn't realize that the Beatles are the biggest band ever and that future generations will continue to discover their music just does not get music. Apple getting their catalog is huge.
Click to expand...

Maybe apple finally getting the Beatles is huge, but anyone that actually uses itunes is still a tool.
 
Most of the "Rap" artist use/steal rifs from old music and loop it with their non-talent unable to sing crap rap. If old is $#!+, then why do they feel the need to use it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top