Skip

I read the news today, oh boy
November 16, 2010 1:23 AM   Subscribe

Well whadda ya know, the largest music retailer in the United States is about to start selling the Beatles. Bet you still won't be able to buy Lady Madonna without the piano, though, even though it kicks all kindsa ass without the 88 keys.
posted by flapjax at midnite (256 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite

 
Due to things like the Beatles Rock Band edition. there have been quite a few separated version of Beatles songs floating around out there. (Perhaps helped by the last remastering edition that produced the that Las Vegas "Love" show?) It's impressive considering how primitive the original recording equipment was.
posted by Catblack at 1:43 AM on November 16, 2010


More boogtleg stuff of interest:

I Feel Fine (no vocal).

Sing along with Rain (and have Lennon harmonize with you on the choruses!).

Rain lead vocal track, loud and clear, accompanied only by bass and tambourine.

Lennon's vocal track is mixed waaay up on I Am the Walrus.

And Your Bird Can Sing. Oh, and so could John and Paul.

Get yer karaoke on, Nowhere Man.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:52 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


We'll see if it's something more than just The Beatles (cloud storage? wireless sync? streaming music?). Sure, they're a history-making band that still stands up incredibly well today, but all the tech websites got themselves in a twist about what this could be when the page first dropped, and none of them were talking about The Beatles being #1 on their hit list. I get the feeling that if that's all this is, it'll be hailed as a big win for Apple in the popular press, but not quite as much of one for those of us who would like to see the iTunes service evolve.
posted by Punkey at 2:18 AM on November 16, 2010


Can Buy Me Love
posted by fairmettle at 2:33 AM on November 16, 2010 [8 favorites]


"Apple is expected to announce..." is not the same thing as "Apple will," but the Wall Street Journal is usually Apple's go-to publication for official leaks, and sure enough it says Apple will. The author isn't somebody I recognize for having access to those sorts of news items, though.

We'll find out in 90 minutes, I guess. I'd rather the big announcement was about whatever that mysterious data farm in North Carolina is, though. The Beatles are great and all, but I lack the enthusiasm to have access to yet another means to buy the same music from 'em.
posted by ardgedee at 2:34 AM on November 16, 2010


I love the alternative takes, though, flapjax. When I was a kid, we had a vinyl album of Beatles rarities with takes like that, and it always struck me as a more interesting and personable than their official product.
posted by ardgedee at 2:49 AM on November 16, 2010


and Apple Corps, the band’s company (not to be confused with the technology company)

No confusion here, NYT. But thanks!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 3:00 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


ssF, that parenthetical is generally considered to be one of the fundamental reasons why it took so long for The Beatles to unanimously agree to be listed on iTunes. Someone (or more) at Apple Corps holds deep grudges.
posted by ardgedee at 3:16 AM on November 16, 2010


ardgedee : that parenthetical is generally considered to be one of the fundamental reasons why it took so long for The Beatles to unanimously agree to be listed on iTunes.

Well, that, and the death of the non-whores from the band.

But hey, "Sir" Paul gots ta get paid, son.
posted by pla at 3:24 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


No wireless. Less Pings than a eminem. Lame.
posted by nomadicink at 3:26 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Sorry for threadmodding a little, but I've been trying to nail down why this news carries so much emotional weight with me. It's been decades since I obsessively tracked down records by and books about The Beatles, and many years since my time as a Mac advocate. I think it comes down to this: The Beatles and Apple, endlessly at each other hammer and tongs over who what terms by which either of them gets to name themselves after a fruit (leading to all kinds of great little stories), appear to have finally come to an agreement on something. Even if they're just businesses (and it Is Just Business), neither of these businesses would have managed to succeed as they have without sustaining the emotional investment of their customers.

iTunes stocking The Beatles signifies a rare harmonic convergence of two of the biggest nerd crushes ever. I'm half surprised Steve Jobs hadn't called a press conference so that he could dance on stage.

It's getting late, time to freshen up and go to work.
posted by ardgedee at 3:35 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


Someone (or more) at Apple Corps holds deep grudges.

Yoko.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:07 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Yoko.

Cite?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:14 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


The idea that anyone who wants the Beatles in MP3 doesn't already have the Beatles in MP3 is a "haha old people" kind of thing.
posted by GilloD at 4:15 AM on November 16, 2010 [44 favorites]


I'm ambivalent about the Beatles-piano combination. Paul McCartney's pounding triplets and John Lennon's repetitive piano chords are two of the Beatles' less appealing musical legacies to the world. I mean, it was cute that two guys who weren't very good at playing the piano gave it a try, after all, they were brilliant songwriters. But the pounding chords went on to become the fallback piano style for powerpoppers for decades to come, and really, only Emitt Rhodes pulled it off with any aplomb. Now, whenever I hear a powerpop song that begins with those "blong blong blong" crude-but-sincere Beatle piano chords, I bail out. (Dylan does the pounding chord thing too, but he kept it off his official recordings.) Of course, the piano was fine when George Martin played it, and somebody does a really cool little riff in "She's a Woman" that really pops in the stereo re-masters. And I suppose it isn't so bad when McCartney plays it in "Let it Be". But why in the world would anybody object to the piano in "Lady Madonna?" It seems like the perfect balance between ambition and ability with the instrument, and if McCartney seems to bear down a little hard, you can always listen to the somewhat lighter touch Fats Domino gave it.
posted by Faze at 4:21 AM on November 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


Beatles blue.
posted by TedW at 4:29 AM on November 16, 2010


flapjax at midnite: "Cite?"

Don't have one, but I remember reading somewhere that Yoko and Jobs don't get along too well, at least wrt business affairs. Seems moot in light of the announcement to come, anyway.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:42 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


faze, i suppose i've always favored musical minimalism, but i really enjoy hearing what songs sound like when you take things away. (that's the reason the Cat Power cover of "Satisfaction" is my favorite cover evar.) "Lady Madonna" without the piano sounded...great. I don't want to hear it with the piano anymore after that.

that could be because I'm feeling the piano when I listen to it. i've heard this song probably a thousand times, after all.

(also it flashes me back to college, when I went over to a friend's house and he played me some songs off Rubber Soul. His needle was shot, so we could only hear one side of the record groove -- only one of the stereo channels, IOW. He played me "Run for your Life", and John's lead was faint and echoey on one channel, with the chorus LOUD AND CLEAR on the other: "Better run for your life if you can, little girl..."

I never thought about John Lennon the same way after that.
posted by lodurr at 4:46 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


blazecock, would be interested to see that cite. i don't know a lot about yoko, but that fits with an impression I have of her as being someone who doesn't give much of a crap about the money she can make off something if it doesn't fit the way she wants to do it.
posted by lodurr at 4:48 AM on November 16, 2010


Can't find it, sorry.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:50 AM on November 16, 2010


no sweat. just that she gets more interesting as i get older.
posted by lodurr at 4:51 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


would be interesting if they also launched or announced streaming today. iTunes streaming is going to cause utter panic in certain circles and won't really need any promotion -- might even be better kept quiet for a bit.

Or, if they wanted to go big, getting the Beatles could be the "hook" for streaming: "Stream the Beatles!"

So, WSJ may be right, but what's interesting might be what's missing from the leak.
posted by lodurr at 4:55 AM on November 16, 2010


Paul McCartney's pounding triplets and John Lennon's repetitive piano chords are two of the Beatles' less appealing musical legacies to the world.

I'd agree. Which is why I so prefer the Lady Madonna I linked to in the post here: without the piano it breathes so much better. The tune sounds fresh, modern, immediate and alive.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:56 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


The idea that anyone who wants the Beatles in MP3 doesn't already have the Beatles in MP3 is a "haha old people" kind of thing.

It also divides the world into Beatles Fans (willing to do the WORK to get this TRANSCENDENT MUSIC) and Not Beatles Fans (who just don't give a CRAP), which is nothing new, but still annoying. There are maybe ten Beatles songs I like, but it's not worth it to me to buy or pirate ten different albums just to make a mix of a band that I generally-sorta-like-okay-I-guess. I'm really happy to see that I'll be able to get them a la carte soon!
posted by Greg Nog at 5:00 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Is it just me, or does Lady Madonna without the piano make the song sound like it belongs in the Rubber Soul/Revolver era rather than the Magical Mystery Tour/White Album era?
posted by Golfhaus at 5:04 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Norwegian Wood doesn't work without the sitar.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:07 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Why is this news, let alone metafilter-worthy? It's not like their catalog hasn't been available. Know what else will be available on iTunes today? new Kid Rock, and a Glee Christmas album! Quick, tell someone.
posted by FreezBoy at 5:12 AM on November 16, 2010 [17 favorites]


Now if iTunes would only come out with a service to print CDs of the "iTunes-only" releases, using waveforms that haven't been crushed to death via MP3. Bah. *spit*
posted by adipocere at 5:14 AM on November 16, 2010


It's not like their catalog hasn't been available.

Has their catalog been available for sale via individual mp3 tracks before this?
posted by Greg Nog at 5:15 AM on November 16, 2010


This is the most boring Apple news ever, and I am a huge fanboi (and small shareholder). Seriously, who gives one-seventh of a shit? Everyone my age and older who wants these albums already has them. Everyone younger than me would just torrent them. At some point on the younger range of the age spectrum (and probably not all that much younger), I can't imagine that they're listening to the Beatles at all. Who is the supposed market for this?
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:22 AM on November 16, 2010 [10 favorites]


Is it just me, or does Lady Madonna without the piano make the song sound like it belongs in the Rubber Soul/Revolver era rather than the Magical Mystery Tour/White Album era?

True! Maybe because absent the piano, the saxes stand out like the horn parts in "Good Day Sunshine", which also seem to come out of nowhere.

Norwegian Wood doesn't work without the sitar.

True! But too bad George Martin didn't quietly return to the studio that night, take the sitar out into the back alley, and smash it to bits. We'd never have been subjected to "Within You and Without You", the Maharishi, the works. You might say, the sixties started going bad the day George Harrison first picked up the sitar.
posted by Faze at 5:22 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Why is this news, let alone metafilter-worthy?

One theory: It's a victory for one person's vision, namely Steve Jobs. Getting the Beatles online is like setting that last, golden stone in a cathedral that's been under construction for the last decade. In a metaphorical way, he's "won" the Internet music business. Perhaps no one else could claim they've done what he's done, from hardware to software to music selection.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:25 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


Well, that, and the death of the non-whores from the band.

Not a Paul fan by any means, but I'd say this has more to do with the death of Neil Aspinall than with any member (or family member) of the band. There is now an ex-Sony music guy (and an American - I think his name is Jeff Jones) at the head of Apple Corps, and I suspect he had an easier time negotiating with Jobs than Aspinall would have.

I'm also vastly amused at the way that the NYT refers to "Steven P. Jobs". I had to stop and figure out if there was some other Steve Jobs involved in the story for a second.

The article notes this would be more symbolic than anything, and I have to say I'm torn. I just invested a ton of money in the complete remastered set, which I then took the time to convert, so I won't be buying this from iTunes. However, I suspect that "the youngins" will now be more likely to access their catalog than they would have been if they'd had to buy a CD....
posted by anastasiav at 5:25 AM on November 16, 2010


Know what else will be available on iTunes today? new Kid Rock...

Actually Kid Rock is boycotting iTunes and only has a single album on there.
posted by nomadicink at 5:28 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Why is this news, let alone metafilter-worthy?

Because, as mentioned above, there's been animosity between Apple (nee Computer) and Apple Corps since the day Steve Jobs decided to make possible audio recording on a Mac.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:30 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


(trivia: One of the original Macintosh system alert sounds was called 'Sosumi.')
posted by shakespeherian at 5:31 AM on November 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


Getting the Beatles online is like setting that last, golden stone in a cathedral that's been under construction for the last decade.

Apple fandom is really beyond parody at this point. A cathedral? Really? It's a website that sells music, pretty much the same way that Amazon sells music. And I've had Beatles albums ripped to MP3 for a dozen years, this is really trivia.
posted by octothorpe at 5:36 AM on November 16, 2010 [17 favorites]


*sigh*
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:37 AM on November 16, 2010 [8 favorites]


I seem to recall reading that McCartney was the only one of the four who learned how to read music.

So, bonus points for that.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:37 AM on November 16, 2010


Who is the supposed market for this?

Might be why there's just an announcement and not a press event.

From a realistic standpoint, I'm thinking this is quietly smart. If it is the Beatles being available on iTunes, what better was to announce it than through iTunes? Those who are interested will make with the one click and buy. Those who aren't, well whatever. The point is to give notice to those who are interested, which I'm guessing will be way more than the pundits think. I'm betting there's a sizable part of the audience that hasn't copied the CDs or bit torrented them, so having them available in iTunes will be like "OH MY GOD MUST BUY". Again, it's a quiet thing, nothing earth-shattering, but still neat to a certain number of people with iTunes accounts.

The Apple home page looks odd now. The "check back here tomorrow" text is still up, so it could be a tad confusing. What the hell, Steve?
posted by nomadicink at 5:37 AM on November 16, 2010


It's a website that sells music, pretty much the same way that Amazon sells music.

iTunes is not a website. If you're going to be bitchy, at least get the facts right.
posted by nomadicink at 5:38 AM on November 16, 2010


You might say, the sixties started going bad the day George Harrison first picked up the sitar.

Yeah, you might say that. I wouldn't, though. The history of music is characterized by the continual human desire to extend the boundaries of musical knowledge and practice, particularly in regard to musicians' absorbing of influences (and putting those influences toward new types of expression) from musics outside their own particular, immediate milieu. Musicians listening to some new stuff, and bringing some of that new stuff into their own music. It's been going on for thousands of years. George picking up a sitar was just one more step along that road, and it's ultimately a very positive road, even though not every experiment will be successful or noteworthy.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:40 AM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]


"Within You and Without You", in retrospect, should at the time have been recognized as an indication that one can hybridize disparate music of the world and still come up with pabulum. It's not a lesson we really understood until the 1980s.

Snark aside, it's not experimentation if there's no risk of failure, so points to George for trying I guess.
posted by ardgedee at 5:50 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Without the Maharishi there'd be no "Sexy Sadie" and a very different 'White Album' altogether. And "Within You Without You" is absolutely the right song to begin side two of Sgt. Pepper. I can't imagaine it any other way.

And, I swear, I'm not usually this guy (I adore my little red Nano & use it constantly) but Beatles records - even bootlegs (I'm looking at you, my dear, sweet "Ultra Rare Trax") never sound as good as when I listen to them on vinyl.

Today I am an old man on the internet. I'll have the prune juice, please.
posted by mintcake! at 5:52 AM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]


pla: Well, that, and the death of the non-whores from the band.

John Lennon, 1970: "I mean to sell as many records as I can, because I'm an artist who wants everyone to love me and everybody to buy my stuff."

I'm not sure of your definition of non-whoredom, but the idea that Lennon (or Harrison, for that matter) would have been unalterably opposed to Beatles music being on iTunes (or anywhere else, for that matter) doesn't ring true for me. The idea that the other two get saddled with the "whore" label because they're still alive to make this happen is kind of vulgar.

octothorpe: It's a website that sells music, pretty much the same way that Amazon sells music. And I've had Beatles albums ripped to MP3 for a dozen years, this is really trivia.

Your trivia is another person's point of interest.

ardgedee: "Within You and Without You", in retrospect, should at the time have been recognized as an indication that one can hybridize disparate music of the world and still come up with pabulum.

Your pablum is, etc., etc., etc.
posted by blucevalo at 5:54 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Whoa octothorpe. Whatever you do, don't read Don Quixote. You'll be disappointed to learn that they're windmills and not actual giants.
posted by sourwookie at 5:55 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Also: EMITT RHODES. Damn straight, Faze.
posted by mintcake! at 5:58 AM on November 16, 2010


Why are people who want to make money from their music considered "whores" by folks who are stuffed in a CAFO doing TPS reports for eight hours a day?

While the lawyers were all arguing these past few years I've managed to acquire the catalog in other ways but I'm still glad we're one step closer to being able to buy whatever media we want, whenever we want it. I generally look to buy stuff first but I'm not going to wait around for someone to get their shit together. It's 2010, for god's sake.
posted by bondcliff at 6:00 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


by folks who are stuffed in a CAFO doing TPS reports for eight hours a day?

Ten hours, with an additional 8 every other Saturday. Layoffs suck in more ways than one.
posted by nomadicink at 6:02 AM on November 16, 2010


Fox News reported this with the usual amount of fact checking. Manchester, my foot. If they mistook the Beatles for Oasis, heads might roll.
posted by stelas at 6:06 AM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]


The Beatles were popularizers, people who brought a watered-down version of stuff to a mainstream audience (like, say, Radiohead, these days). And, for that reason, the songs that people hate (e.g. 'Within You Without You,' 'Revolution 9') are some of my favorites.

If it wasn't for George's sitar experiments, people like Dave Pike and Ananda Shankar (and albums like the two Sitar Beat comps) would never have attained even their current meager levels of fame and popularity.
posted by box at 6:08 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Nor would we have Lord Sitar.
posted by mintcake! at 6:10 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


They still don't have AC/DC.
posted by smackfu at 6:13 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Norwegian Wood doesn't work without the sitar

I agree that if you pull it out of that recording it's really missing something. But I heard it covered once by a guy who played the solos on the low strings of his guitar. It sounded really nice.
posted by lodurr at 6:16 AM on November 16, 2010


It's a shame Paul wasn't alive to see this.
posted by mazola at 6:17 AM on November 16, 2010 [33 favorites]


I like that most of Delmoi's contributions are either telling somebody not to call something a waste of time or calling something a waste of time.

Somebody somewhere on Twitter said that this is possibly a bigger deal for Steve Jobs than it is for anybody else. Jobs is a Beatles obsessive. He's said before that the entire structure for Apple was modeled after the Beatles' design of "take talented people, put them in a group, let them all write songs". A model many other bands follow, sure, but the Beatles were the archetype for that. Jobs said that his goal with organizing Apple and, later, Pixar, was to make an organization capable of that kind of genius but less susceptible to Yoko Ono random discord and strife between individuals.

Not groundbreaking news, unless they have some other tricky trick that nobody's predicted yet. But rather nice news nonetheless.
posted by Rory Marinich at 6:17 AM on November 16, 2010


They still don't have AC/DC.

So, they have some taste!

Jes' kiddin'. I like AC/DC.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:18 AM on November 16, 2010


They still don't have AC/DC.

I was going to point out that hey DO, however, have an AC/DC karaoke/instrumental album, but upon looking at the tracklisting, it seems that it doesn't include "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap," which, what the hell?
posted by Greg Nog at 6:19 AM on November 16, 2010


I like "Within You Without You" and "The Inner Light." I didn't when I first heard them as a kid, but I have grown to love them.
posted by Daddy-O at 6:19 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


...the Beatles' design of "take talented people, put them in a group, let them all write songs".

All? Jobs was perhaps unaware that Ringo only wrote, like, two songs?

Hella drummer though. Charlie Watts shoulda taken a few lessons with him.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:21 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Until Apple has streaming and most people who listen to streaming music go there instead of Pandora, they have not "won" the battle for music market dominance on the internet. Once they've done that, the game will be over for whatever future is foreseeable at that time.
posted by lodurr at 6:23 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


[Jobs has] said before that the entire structure for Apple was modeled after the Beatles' design of "take talented people, put them in a group, let them all write songs".

... and then take credit for them.
posted by lodurr at 6:25 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


... and then take credit for them.

Jobs = McCartney?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:26 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Correct, lodurr. If they get that done they'll probably call it "Genius Radio" as the dataset they've collected related to listening habits must be something Pandora and Last FM surely envy.
posted by sourwookie at 6:28 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Jobs = McCartney?

[shrug /] sure. but to someone's point up-thread, "sir" paul does have the misfortune of being the one left alive to absorb blame. (Ringo doesn't count because nobody's gonna blame him for that shit.)
posted by lodurr at 6:29 AM on November 16, 2010


Until Apple has streaming and most people who listen to streaming music go there instead of Pandora

I still haven't figured out how Pandora makes any money. I don't pay them anything and yet they've tapped into my brain and play me only songs I like. About once a year I'll write down the name of a band I've come to like and then I'll go to Amazon.com and download the album.
posted by bondcliff at 6:31 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


While the lawyers were all arguing these past few years I've managed to acquire the catalog in other ways...

I await the usual lectures about depriving the artist of badly needed royalties.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:35 AM on November 16, 2010


Despite it being a sort of cultural milestone, i don't think Apple would call a major press conference just for acquiring the rights to the Beatles (though i could be wrong). I'm guessing some sort of cloud-based or streaming service as well that will be the major infrastructure piece, and then Jobs can do his "one more thing" shtick and bring on Paul and Ringo.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:36 AM on November 16, 2010


Oh, looks like the pricing has already leaked out.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:38 AM on November 16, 2010


Hella drummer though. Charlie Watts shoulda taken a few lessons with him.

Yeah. If he had, his little band could have gone somewhere.
posted by rocket88 at 6:42 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


Oh, looks like the pricing has already leaked out.

It hasn't just leaked out, they appear to be in the iTunes store already, at least via my iPhone!

Although I ripped all the CD's ages ago and don't see anything to buy there, this is exciting news to me.
posted by TedW at 6:45 AM on November 16, 2010


Complete Beatles catalog now available on iTunes. (links to iTunes site, not a news article)
posted by furtive at 6:47 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah. If he had, his little band could have gone somewhere.

Hey, there's being in a successful band and there's being a really good drummer. They're not the same thing! :-)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:48 AM on November 16, 2010


19.99/album, $149 for the box set.
posted by TedW at 6:48 AM on November 16, 2010


I forgot this is a company who's routine business deals fundamentally alter society!

delmoi, that's "whose", not "who's". You do get points for not spelling it as "altar", though!

But hey, how'dja like that Lady Madonna without the piano? Pretty sweet, eh?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:51 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


$150 for the complete Beatles catalog, plus some extras? Crap, I know what the wife is going to be emailing about today.
posted by nomadicink at 6:52 AM on November 16, 2010


Double albums (the White Album and the Red and Blue albums) are $19.99; the rest are $12.99.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:53 AM on November 16, 2010


You know what I find really interesting? Learning just how uninterested someone is in something. That's really interesting.
posted by bondcliff at 6:54 AM on November 16, 2010 [23 favorites]


Everyone younger than me would just torrent them.

Overstatement. And untrue. I can't wait to buy a few tracks in particular...very excited to see The Beatles come to iTunes and I'm not even 30 yet.
posted by morganannie at 6:57 AM on November 16, 2010


And now everyone is gone downloading.
posted by morganannie at 7:01 AM on November 16, 2010


Being For The Benefit of Mister Jobs
posted by emelenjr at 7:02 AM on November 16, 2010


I seem to recall reading that McCartney was the only one of the four who learned how to read music.

That's funny, I remember hearing when his first orchestral album came out that since he'd never bothered to learn music, he had to sing all the instruments' parts to a musical transcriber.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


This is a day I will never forget.
posted by ColdChef at 7:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I am surpised that no one has mentoned that The Beatles were late to CD as well: 1987 was the first year that you could buy legal CDs of Beatles stuff, which was two or three years after everybody else had gone that way already.

I think the most interesting thing you could do to Lady Madonna would be to go absolutely crazy on it: maybe come into it with the Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da handclaps, and the Why Don't We Do It In The Road drums, gives us the chorus backing vocals before we hear the piano, abandon it halfway through for the Hey Bulldog riff backed with the organ solo out of She's So Heavy, maybe easing back into Lady Madonna by way of bits of Clapton's guitar solo from While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

Oh, wait.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:04 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]




I've been looking for years for a Beatles mix that I once heard of Strawberry Fields Forever with nothing but the drums and strings. I remember it as very good and I'd like to hear it again.
posted by klapaucius at 7:06 AM on November 16, 2010


Damn. I'm suddenly missing Lennon and wishing he was alive.
posted by nomadicink at 7:06 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


(And I just found out that some update somewhere just gave my old Macbook Pro momentum scrolling, which is MUCH BETTER NEWS)
posted by Rory Marinich at 7:07 AM on November 16, 2010


~Disappointed the recent releases of the mono versions of the albums aren't included. I guess that would piss-off those who bought the limited-number set, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:08 AM on November 16, 2010


I still haven't figured out how Pandora makes any money.

Aside from the premium subscriptions and advertising, you mean?

They are missing an obvious opportunity by not having some kind of a "buy" link for every song. Maybe they're just holding out for more money. Good luck to them on that with Bezos....
posted by lodurr at 7:08 AM on November 16, 2010


Yoko cite for those asking for it. There are others, but they aren't had to find.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:09 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Now if iTunes would only come out with a service to print CDs of the "iTunes-only" releases, using waveforms that haven't been crushed to death via MP3. Bah. *spit*
posted by adipocere at 5:14 AM on November 16



The iTunes Store does NOT sell MP3s.

Also, data compression and dynamic range compression are two totally different things.
posted by tantrumthecat at 7:09 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Wait. I already forgot.
posted by ColdChef at 7:09 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


... and I guess I underestimated Steve's beatlemania: Looks like it's just the Beatles, after all.
posted by lodurr at 7:11 AM on November 16, 2010


Aside from the premium subscriptions and advertising, you mean?

I don't know anyone who has a premium subscription and I've never heard an advertisement while listening. I only listen to it on my slim devices, so I don't know what kind of ads they display on their website.

I'm sure plenty of people do buy the premium version, and perhaps I just tune out the ads, but to me it's always seemed like this magic music service that I get without giving anything back, other than maybe a little bit of data on my listening preferences.
posted by bondcliff at 7:11 AM on November 16, 2010


Millions of young adults now know what to get their boomer parents for xmas.
posted by device55 at 7:12 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


well, this is odd - because i can hear a piano very faintly in the background - did paul do a scratch track and overdub the piano last or did someone fade it out by playing just one stereo channel?

anyway, i like the piano in that song - and i think charlie's a great drummer, which is not to say that ringo isn't great, too - and if there had been no norwegian wood sitar, jeff baxter wouldn't have played that coral electric sitar in do it again - and i like the piano pop style the beatles came up with, although there are many piano players who run right over it

so there
posted by pyramid termite at 7:12 AM on November 16, 2010


Forgot what? Did something happen?

"Rain" with only vocal, bass and tambourine is awesome, though.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:13 AM on November 16, 2010


well, this is odd - because i can hear a piano very faintly in the background

OOPS
posted by mintcake! at 7:17 AM on November 16, 2010


Bondcliff, re. ads on Pandora: they're there. They're rotated on a regular basis. I think it's a matter of time-elpased, not number of songs.

Or are you saying that you just tune them out? If the latter, that's kind of irrelevant -- what matters is that they're getting paid by the advertisers, and as yet there's no sensor that detects whether ads are getting perceived, so they're getting paid whether we "hear" the ads or not.
posted by lodurr at 7:17 AM on November 16, 2010


This is odd. I could have sworn I already had all of these albums on my iPwn.
posted by eyeballkid at 7:19 AM on November 16, 2010


and i think charlie's a great drummer

Just as an example, his every single fill in "Sway" (Sticky Fingers) is a total disaster, a little miniature train wreck. What an abysmal rhythm performance. His inept, embarrassingly clumsy performance on that ruins (for me as a drummer, anyway) what is in all other respects a fantastic rock song.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:20 AM on November 16, 2010


Bondcliff, re. ads on Pandora: they're there. They're rotated on a regular basis. I think it's a matter of time-elpased, not number of songs.

I don't get them on the iPad client, that I've noticed. There are banner ads in the app, and links to purchase stuff, but no audio ads.
posted by smackfu at 7:23 AM on November 16, 2010


Or are you saying that you just tune them out?

Yeah, if they're there I've never noticed them. I figured they licensed their tech to other companies and sold data on listener preferences. I imagine they do that too. I certainly hope they do make money, since I want them to be around for a long time.

I really would like a one-button "but this track" feature, though I'd probably go broke.
posted by bondcliff at 7:24 AM on November 16, 2010


Awesome, finally EMI figures it all out, just in time for them to disappear completely, never to be seen again.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:27 AM on November 16, 2010


Why is this news, let alone metafilter-worthy?

Uh, because it appeared on Reddit? DUHHH.
posted by tapesonthefloor at 7:29 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Color me unimpressed. If I wasn't at work I'd go back to bed. Beatles are less exciting to me than Christmas. I was hoping for something I'd never forget. Additional content is a yawner for me. Oh, they added a band! Yawn. I was hoping for the must have Christmas toy like a HD Digital Video camera only or pretty much anything. The only thing exciting about this, IMHO, is that they finally got a deal they've been talking about for years done. Maybe this is a day Apple won't forget, but I'll not remember this day next week.

I can't imagine many people under 30 being that excited about this. A refresh of the iMac would have been more exciting to me. Hell, a price drop on the Cinema display would be more exciting.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:32 AM on November 16, 2010


Now if iTunes would only come out with a service to print CDs of the "iTunes-only" releases, using waveforms that haven't been crushed to death via MP3. Bah. *spit*
posted by adipocere


They sell the high-bitrate versions now, and you probably can't tell the difference.
Everybody I personally know that has made big deals about ZOMG COMPRESSION BAD, I've had them blindly listen to cds versus even the 128kbit AAC and they couldn't guess which is which.

I can't tell the difference myself with any type of music when it is about 192kbit VBR, even on great equipment with my pedantic ex-recording engineer ears.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:34 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


I can't imagine many people under 30 being that excited about this.

Bach is on iTunes? I can't imagine many people under 400 being excited.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:38 AM on November 16, 2010 [17 favorites]


The Beatles are that rock-and-rolling music, right? With the hair?
posted by everichon at 7:38 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


If only Jobs was a big Sun City Girls fan.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:39 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


I can't imagine many people under 30 being that excited about this.

What an odd statement. Even supposing it's true, there are plenty of people over the age of 30 with iTunes accounts. The dismissal of something 'cause OMG the under set won't be interested is a particularly tiresome line of thought.

Now get up and turn the tv channel. Grandpa doesn't have one of those new fnacy remote tv things.
posted by nomadicink at 7:41 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Just as an example, his every single fill in "Sway" (Sticky Fingers) is a total disaster, a little miniature train wreck.

that's what happens when keith richards drops the guitar and mick jagger picks it up - it's a sloppy performance - if keith could have been bothered with it, i'm sure it would have been better

i never really cared for that song
posted by pyramid termite at 7:42 AM on November 16, 2010


Damn. I'm suddenly missing Lennon and wishing he was alive.

See, there's news I would never forget. Steve Jobs stepping forth like Jesus and Lazarus and saying, "Come forth from that wooden box," and then Lennon being back alive. Yep, I'd remember that! I'd be lying about it and telling people I was there and everything. "Yeah, I saw him do it. Then Lennon was telling Steve about how much Garageband sucks. Screw you I was too there!"
posted by cjorgensen at 7:44 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Color me unimpressed. If I wasn't at work I'd go back to bed. Beatles are less exciting to me than Christmas. I was hoping for something I'd never forget. Additional content is a yawner for me. Oh, they added a band! Yawn. I was hoping for the must have Christmas toy like a HD Digital Video camera only or pretty much anything.

The announcement clearly said this thing was about iTunes, why would you think Apple would put out some weird hardware device that only you want?

So anyway, for all that are unimpressed, Apple Corps (The Beatles) versus Apple Computers was a cold war right from the get-go. Apple were supposed to stay out of music completely, and then they ended up not keeping to that.

Purely in terms of music nerdery, The Beatles being on iTunes is like the Berlin Wall coming down, except with Reagan and Gorbachev french kissing on top of it while it falls.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:45 AM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]


that's what happens when keith richards drops the guitar and mick jagger picks it up - it's a sloppy performance

That's interesting, I never knew about the guitar switch-off. Still doesn't explain for me why the drumming itself is so awful, though. But, I'm happy if we can agree to disagree, like gentleman, on Mr. Watts' talents. I know, of course, that there are many who disagree with my assessment of his skills and musicianship.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:47 AM on November 16, 2010


except with Reagan and Gorbachev french kissing on top of it while it falls.

Um, that's an image I didn't need to have evoked immediately before caffeine ingestion .....
posted by blucevalo at 7:48 AM on November 16, 2010


What an odd statement. Even supposing it's true, there are plenty of people over the age of 30 with iTunes accounts. The dismissal of something 'cause OMG the under set won't be interested is a particularly tiresome line of thought.

Oh, for the people that are into Beatles this is huge. My only criticism is that this was sold as something people will never forget, and as such I find it underwhelming. My viewpoint isn't in isolation. Many of the tech folk are giving a big yawn in unison. I was being kind when I said "under 30." I've met college kids that don't even know who the Beatles are. I've met a hell of a lot more that have none of their music and can't even be bothered to torrent it.

This isn't exciting enough news to pretend like people will remember where they were when the Beatles were finally on iTunes!
posted by cjorgensen at 7:50 AM on November 16, 2010


Many of the tech folk are giving a big yawn in unison.

What do the tech folk think about Arcade Fire's new album, or that Panda Bear keeps delaying his latest solo EP?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:55 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


The announcement clearly said this thing was about iTunes, why would you think Apple would put out some weird hardware device that only you want?

Hell, I don't want that device. My point is that if you are advertising this as something that is amazing then I'd better be amazed. Additional content is only cool if you're excited about that content. There were tons of speculation on what this could be from cloud storage, to streaming, to subscription based services, etc. All more exciting to me. That Apple has a band that they have been talking about adding for years may be an Apple coup, but it's not something that is a game changer.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:56 AM on November 16, 2010


What do the tech folk think about Arcade Fire's new album, or that Panda Bear keeps delaying his latest solo EP?

Were these being hyped my Apple as something you'll never forget?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:57 AM on November 16, 2010


Didn't Napster carry this stuff back in 1999? Maybe I'm just old, but I don't understand why (a) this is a big deal; and (b) why I would pay $19.99 for the White Album and $12.99 for Revolver, when I can get CDs from Amazon for $11.99 and $7.99 respectively.
posted by rtimmel at 7:59 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


shakespeherian: "Bach is on iTunes? I can't imagine many people under 400 being excited"

It's a shame Handel wasn't alive to see this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:59 AM on November 16, 2010


[A few comments removed. No one cares that you don't care, please feel free to not-care on your own blog if you feel strongly about it.]
posted by cortex at 8:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [14 favorites]


My point is that if you are advertising this as something that is amazing then I'd better be amazed.

Isn't that how advertising works? Do you complain when Tonight's Episode of ER, The One You Must Not Miss is one that you'd be ok having missed? When the new Doritos are not The Most Nacho Cheesiest Ever Made do you write sternly-written letters to the Frito-Lay company?

This is something that has been in the works for years and now it's finally happened. Both Apple and The Beatles are gonna make some money off it. Forgive them if they, you know, try to hype it a bit.

And don't blame Apple for all the speculation. It's the fans and the rumor sites that are the ones doing the speculatin'.
posted by bondcliff at 8:03 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


[[ I seem to recall reading that McCartney was the only one of the four who learned how to read music. ]]

That's funny, I remember hearing when his first orchestral album came out that since he'd never bothered to learn music, he had to sing all the instruments' parts to a musical transcriber.


God bless Amazon book search...

The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles, by Peter Brown and Steven Gaines, pg. 79:

None of The Beatles could read or write music, although Paul was later to teach himself.

FWIW.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:03 AM on November 16, 2010


If only Jobs was a big Sun City Girls fan.

I dunno, I heard somewhere that he, he, he ain't gonna play Sun City.
posted by Copronymus at 8:05 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


the rumor sites that are the ones doing the speculatin'.

Yeah, this was an epic troll against the rumor sites, in my opinion. Steve Jobs has always made a big deal about, and I think it is actually sincere, that he really does care about music. This was Apple caring about music.

It doesn't matter if you personally don't like The Beatles, but even if you don't, they are pretty much the most important band there ever was. That important band happened to have a massive feud with Apple Computer, and now they're all holding hands and downloading All You Need Is Love together.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:08 AM on November 16, 2010


My only criticism is that this was sold as something people will never forget, and as such I find it underwhelming.

OMIGOD A MARKETING PERSON SOMEWHERE EXAGGERATED
posted by jbickers at 8:11 AM on November 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


they're all holding hands and downloading All You Need Is Love together.

let me take you down(load)...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:12 AM on November 16, 2010


the largest music retailer in the United States is about to start selling the Beatles.

Never heard of them. Are they any good?
posted by I am the Walrus at 8:12 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


By the way, if you buy the box set, you get the album-specific album art for the tracks, not just the Apple logo on black background graphic. Mine are still downloading, so I don't know which, if any, get that graphic. Also, it looks like the art for the documentaries are taken from the mono versions of the albums, although smaller.
posted by kimota at 8:12 AM on November 16, 2010


goo goo g'good!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2010


Related AskMe question.
posted by nomadicink at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2010


Jobs-Yoko animosity citation

:)
posted by mecran01 at 8:17 AM on November 16, 2010


I seem to recall reading that McCartney was the only one of the four who learned how to read music.

No, he never did learn to read music. When he wrote his little symphonic piece, he had to have someone transcribe what he played/hummed.
posted by grubi at 8:18 AM on November 16, 2010


There are Beatles fans under 30.

For real.
posted by morganannie at 8:23 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Man, between iTunes and the new Nano, Apple has made it so easy now to stick every Beatles song up my butthole.
posted by Legomancer at 8:23 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Oh wow, I should be so happy and grateful that they will now allow me to spend my money.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:25 AM on November 16, 2010


Norwegian Wood doesn't work without the sitar.

Revolution 9 doesn't work without the tape manipulations.

I will get all excited about this if this is the last time we all collectively need to get all excited about the Beatles. Great f***ing band but ...

Well, so was Can.
posted by philip-random at 8:27 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


If it gets 125 posts on the blue, then clearly it’s news to a few people, people who care a whole lot about not caring aside.

What would be news is if iTunes had the Kinfaun sessions or the Decca audition.
posted by keratacon at 8:31 AM on November 16, 2010


Well, so was Can.

Yeah, Apple is losing, is losing, is losing its vitamin C not having them on there.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:33 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Still doesn't explain for me why the drumming itself is so awful, though.

see, keith's the timekeeper, charlie's just the drummer - so when charlie tries to follow mick - train wreck
posted by pyramid termite at 8:34 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Wow, I have to say that I really thought a Metafilter thread that was about both Apple and the Beatles/music at all and pop culture would have actually been more of a train wreck than I thought.

I think those who are dismissing this is as not a big deal are forgetting that iTunes.com (or whatever one should properly call Apple's online music store) probably doesn't make most of its money from music lovers with tons and tons of albums. Those people have ripped their own CDs to make their iTunes library or use torrents or some other method. It has always seemed to me that iTunes makes its money from impulse buys -- people who think of a song and decide they want to hear it again. Pop songs tend to make up a huge segment of this. The Beatles catalog is present in culture. This isn't just about all the sales they will make today, but the very, very, very long shelf life these songs will continue to have. That's why its Jobs golden egg or whatever metaphor you want to use.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:34 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I've met college kids that don't even know who the Beatles are.

Whether anyone cares about their music or whatever, I'm still not sure how this is possible given their ubiquity in pop culture.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:34 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


charlie's just the drummer - so when charlie tries to follow mick - train wreck

Ah, OK, I hear that. I see what you mean.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:40 AM on November 16, 2010


Speaking of ubiquity in pop culture, I worked with a girl who thought the band was called (and named after the front man) Ned Zeppelin. This is true.
posted by neuromodulator at 8:47 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Jethro Tull listed under 'solo artists.'
posted by shakespeherian at 8:49 AM on November 16, 2010


I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Jethro Tull listed under 'solo artists.'

This sounds like the premise for a very targeted lulzy tumblblog.
posted by device55 at 8:53 AM on November 16, 2010


The Rutles have been on iTunes for quite some time.

As always, The Beatles are a cheap imitation.
posted by mazola at 8:55 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


a girl who thought the band was called (and named after the front man) Ned Zeppelin.

Hey, neighborino, stop what you're doin'!
Hey, neighborino, you'll drive me to ruin.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:58 AM on November 16, 2010 [9 favorites]


I was wondering what the Beatles yearly holiday profit generation tactic would be this year. I guess this is the answer.

Though this being the answer, it's hard to imagine any kind of followup.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:01 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


It was 30 years ago today
Jobs took the Apple name
They've been fighting now for a while
Yoko doesn't like his style (cite)

But let me introduce to you
stuff you've downloaded for free for years

Sgt Pepper's in the iTunes StoooOOooOOOre!



chirp...     chirp...
posted by mmrtnt at 9:04 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


This truly has been a day I will never forget.

Ever.

Especially when my Visa bill rolls in.
posted by mazola at 9:09 AM on November 16, 2010


eyeballkid: Though this being the answer, it's hard to imagine any kind of followup.

Vinyl.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:16 AM on November 16, 2010


And then 8-track reissues. And then cassette reissues. And then they releases the CDs again, but this time back in the long boxes. By then it should be time for the Beatles catalog in pill form.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:20 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


The Beatles are that rock-and-rolling music, right? With the hair?

Those caterwauling Liverpudlians!
posted by Joe Beese at 9:27 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Vinyl.

Yes, EMI - 180g pressings of the mono albums, please. I'll pre-order now.
posted by mintcake! at 9:30 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Well. I'm going to stand right up and make an ass out of myself by declaring that I actually really, really like Within You, Without You -- especially the call & response instrumental section. I'm also glad the hippies went all Maharishi or whatever, because Ravi Shankar fucking BURNED DOWN the Monterey Pop Festival.

I also like the way they bang on pianos. (See Hey Bulldog - and is that not the greatest electric bass line McCartney ever recorded, anyway? I mean, while I'm at it) Like no one who knows about the piano would ever bang on one like that, you know, except maybe Jerry Lee, or Elton John, or Ben Folds, for god's sake.

Bang on, drummer.

I like Charlie Watts, too
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:32 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


I think those who are dismissing this is as not a big deal are forgetting that iTunes.com (or whatever one should properly call Apple's online music store) probably doesn't make most of its money from music lovers with tons and tons of albums.

Indeed, iTunes is about to make a billion million dollars just from people downloading "In My Life" for use at their weddings.

(I'm not kidding)
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:34 AM on November 16, 2010


With regards to this being some kind of rare "backing track" that the piano was recorded onto, as far as I can tell, it's just a mono mix of the right side of the regular song. Take your left earphone off and voila, no piano.
posted by chococat at 9:36 AM on November 16, 2010


Unless Ringo Starr ever punched Paul McCartney in the nose and said, "I'm not your drummer. You're my fucking singer!", I'm going to have to favor Mr. Watts in any direct comparison.

Mr. Watts has also led a jazz combo - though with what degree of musical success I could not say - so he comes out ahead on versatility as well.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:38 AM on November 16, 2010


I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Jethro Tull listed under 'solo artists.'

Likewise in Canada, I see the bands Edward Bear and Max Webster referred to frequently* as if they were solo individuals.


*Inasmuch as 'frequently' can apply to minor Toronto bands from the seventies.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:39 AM on November 16, 2010


Those caterwauling Liverpudlians!

Mancunians, if you ask Fox News.
posted by grubi at 9:40 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Rejoice, Baby Boomers and hippies-turned-yuppies throughout the world! Your revolution will be sold back to you at $13-20 a pop! Tune in, turn on, enter your credit card number.
posted by naju at 9:46 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


(That was an empty provocation)
posted by naju at 9:51 AM on November 16, 2010


Maybe I'm just old, but I don't understand why (a) this is a big deal; and (b) why I would pay $19.99 for the White Album and $12.99 for Revolver, when I can get CDs from Amazon for $11.99 and $7.99 respectively.

That's the first thing I thought of too. Why pay more for less?
posted by Bonzai at 9:52 AM on November 16, 2010


MetaFilter: Learning just how uninterested someone is in something.
posted by cottoncandybeard at 10:07 AM on November 16, 2010


I guess it wasn't any of these then...
What We Wish Apple Would Do With iTunes
posted by Artw at 10:12 AM on November 16, 2010


Also, data compression and dynamic range compression are two totally different things.

Yeah, I know that. I do the former for a living, for video. Please don't assume I don't know the difference so you can score points.

I do not want waveforms which have gone through lossy data compression. Is that specific enough for you? I dislike dynamic range compression enough as it is — just listen to an old Kate Bush album and you can actually feel the bits where your ears rest a bit before her next assault, versus, say, more modern production, where you get that godawful constant wall of noise that is somehow innately wearying.

I despise lossy compression for audio, for most data rates on MP3 or AAC or pretty much all of them. You have to get up to a reasonably high kbps before it is no longer bothersome. The cymbals alone tend to have this metallic, watery sound like part of the drum kit was recorded in a partially flooded bathysphere.

Sell me FLACs, sell me Shorten, sell me something that wasn't mangled a second time just to save a little disk space.
posted by adipocere at 10:13 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Your revolution will be sold back to you at $13-20 a pop!

Apparently when the surviving Beatles sued Nike and Capitol Records in 1987 George's comment was, "Every Beatles song ever recorded is going to be advertising women’s underwear and sausages. We've got to put a stop to it in order to set a precedent."
posted by blucevalo at 10:17 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I do not want waveforms which have gone through lossy data compression.

Ok ok, we'll get off your lawn. Here, here's an old Kate Bush cassette tape (no Dobly NR, natch), please leave us digital people alone.

As you're in video, are you a CRT purist?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 10:17 AM on November 16, 2010


There are Beatles fans under 30.

There are Beatles fans under 4.
posted by Artw at 10:23 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


shakespeherian: "I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Jethro Tull listed under 'solo artists.'"

Not as bad as when it's done with Pink Floyd
posted by I am the Walrus at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2010


Which one is Pink, anyway?
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


I love all the nails in Nine Inch Nails. Those guys rock!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:43 AM on November 16, 2010


Who is the other Aphex Twin?
posted by Artw at 10:46 AM on November 16, 2010


They still don't have AC/DC.

Not does Amazon MP3. Is it a record label thing, or the band themselves taking a stance against digital distribution?
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 10:49 AM on November 16, 2010


I was wondering what the Beatles yearly holiday profit generation tactic would be this year.

I'd like to see a followup to Beatles Love, but it seems like Cirque du Soleil has moved onto mining other artists' catalogs.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 10:51 AM on November 16, 2010


Joy Division were once taken to court for false advertising.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


I guess it wasn't any of these then...
What We Wired Wish[es] Apple Would Do With iTunes


[on the Cloud for those who didn't follow the link]

Not me. I'd rather have my shit in my own house so I know where it is and where the backup disks are. I've been collecting this 100 Gb of music for a long time, I'm not going to hand it over to the damn Cloud now.
posted by aught at 10:57 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Really there should be some kind of most aggressively exploited dead person stand-off: Michael Jackson Vs Stieg Larsson Vs John Lennon
posted by Artw at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2010


Actually, anyone who thinks that Joy Division are engaging in false advertising hasn't really met them halfway. If joy is defined only by "Good Day Sunshine" and "She Loves You," then you can have the Beatles.
posted by blucevalo at 11:01 AM on November 16, 2010


Actually, anyone who thinks that Joy Division are engaging in false advertising hasn't really met them halfway.

Sorry, I was just making a joke about taking the band's name literally.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:02 AM on November 16, 2010


[on the Cloud for those who didn't follow the link]

Me, I'd take the UI redesign and not sucking performance wise over all the others.
posted by Artw at 11:02 AM on November 16, 2010


George's comment was, "Every Beatles song ever recorded is going to be advertising women’s underwear and sausages."

Well, we knew he was the smartest and wisest Beatle already. I imagine he'd had a vision of the future and seen the Luvs, Hampton Inn, and Target ads.
posted by aught at 11:02 AM on November 16, 2010


[[ They still don't have AC/DC. ]]

Not does Amazon MP3. Is it a record label thing, or the band themselves taking a stance against digital distribution?


I've read that the band feels that their albums are cohesive entities.

Given that each one is exactly the same, this may be true.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:09 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Not does Amazon MP3. Is it a record label thing, or the band themselves taking a stance against digital distribution?

It's the band being opposed to the single-focused nature of digital distribution.
"We believe the songs on any of our albums belong together. If we were on iTunes, we know a certain percentage of people would only download two or three songs from the album. We don't think that represents us musically."
It's a pretty big omission, considering Back in Black is the 2nd best selling album of all time after Thriller.
posted by smackfu at 11:14 AM on November 16, 2010


Joy Division were once taken to court for false advertising.

Yeah, they're not math-rock at all! It's like all you get is 4/4 =1, and then it's just more of the same.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:20 AM on November 16, 2010


We believe the songs on any of our albums belong together.

It's true. If you listened to "Deep in the Hole" right before the following album's "Sink the Pink", the meaning would be completely changed.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:20 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


You know what I find really interesting? Learning just how uninterested someone is in something. That's really interesting.

Good news, then: I'm not interested in what you find interesting.

\o/ everybody wins
posted by davejay at 11:21 AM on November 16, 2010


yay I can finally get to hear beatles music and see what all the fuss is about
posted by jeremy b at 11:37 AM on November 16, 2010


Good news, then: I'm not interested in what you find interesting.

Hmmm. Interesting.
posted by bondcliff at 11:51 AM on November 16, 2010


Actually Kid Rock is boycotting iTunes

This is the most bizarre thing I have read all day - either Kid Rock or the writer seems to be a bit confused. What on earth does Kid Rock's opposition to music piracy have to do with paid download services? And beyond that, his argument seems to be that when he was a kid, he walked barefoot in the snow uphill both ways to buy records, so get off his lawn.
posted by naoko at 11:58 AM on November 16, 2010


I'd be happy if the streaming 1964 concert on the Apple site would, in fact, stream.
posted by cccorlew at 12:10 PM on November 16, 2010


Kid Rock is the New AC/DC.
posted by Artw at 12:11 PM on November 16, 2010


I thought you could sell complete albums on iTunes, i.e. a person could only buy the album, not individual tracks?
posted by nomadicink at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2010


Joy Division were once taken to court for false advertising.

Yeah, more like Joy Subtraction, amirite?!
posted by cottoncandybeard at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2010


It's a shame Handel wasn't alive to see this thread.

Wasn't Handel one of the few people of his generation who thought J. S. Bach was the Shit? Like, would whip out his Bach scores at parties and force people to listen to them?* Or am I confusing him with someone else...

--
*actually serious about this -- I really thought it was Handel.
posted by lodurr at 12:26 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Holst was all "hurry up and invent Star Wars" and shit.
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


Mr. Watts has also led a jazz combo - though with what degree of musical success I could not say - so he comes out ahead on versatility as well.

a: I'm thinking the 'tries to follow Mick, train wreck ensues' thing was more about mick than charlie;
b: Ringo was the only Beatle who'd been a professional musician. A financially successful one, too.
posted by lodurr at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Artw: Kid Rock is the New AC/DC.

Kid Rock isn't even the new Rose Tattoo.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 12:36 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sorry, I was just making a joke about taking the band's name literally.

No offense taken at all. I was being way too literal-minded in my own comment, so ..... yeah.
posted by blucevalo at 12:37 PM on November 16, 2010


TaTu is the new The Smiths.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I thought you could sell complete albums on iTunes, i.e. a person could only buy the album, not individual tracks?

Yeah, you can find soundtrack albums where every track is album-only. But that is probably a legal thing, where the publisher only licensed the song for the soundtrack or something and isn't allowed to sell it individually. In general, I don't think iTunes lets you make your whole album have album-only tracks.
posted by smackfu at 12:41 PM on November 16, 2010


Hannah Montana is the new The Damned.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:44 PM on November 16, 2010


Lady Gaga is the new Janis Joplin
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:46 PM on November 16, 2010


Hannah Scabies?

Rat Montana?
posted by lodurr at 12:47 PM on November 16, 2010


Glee is the new Yo La Tengo.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:47 PM on November 16, 2010


Also, data compression and dynamic range compression are two totally different things.

Yeah, I know that. I do the former for a living, for video. Please don't assume I don't know the difference so you can score points.


You're working under the impression that I do this to score points - let me assure you that I don't. Digital audio is MY living so it rankles me when people misuse terms. You said "MP3". iTunes Store files are not MP3s and never have been. That's what I was driving at there.

I do not want waveforms which have gone through lossy data compression. Is that specific enough for you? I dislike dynamic range compression enough as it is — just listen to an old Kate Bush album and you can actually feel the bits where your ears rest a bit before her next assault, versus, say, more modern production, where you get that godawful constant wall of noise that is somehow innately wearying.

Thank you for clarifying, and I actually agree with you about brickwall dynamic range limiting - it's fatiguing at best and unlistenable at worst.

I despise lossy compression for audio, for most data rates on MP3 or AAC or pretty much all of them. You have to get up to a reasonably high kbps before it is no longer bothersome. The cymbals alone tend to have this metallic, watery sound like part of the drum kit was recorded in a partially flooded bathysphere.

Have you tried the iTunes Store format, which is AAC / 256 kbps? I don't personally find it to have the audible artifacts that you're referring to (which, believe me, I've experienced on crappy MP3s, especially the cymbal issue you mention).

Sell me FLACs, sell me Shorten, sell me something that wasn't mangled a second time just to save a little disk space.

OK, what do you mean by "mangled a second time" here? Do you mean the one-two punch of brickwall limiting and lossy conversion?

I think the reason iTunes isn't selling larger files is that it's a simple matter of real estate. Sure, they're just files, but a servers are physical objects and I can only imagine how many of 'em are needed to run something like the iTunes Store.
posted by tantrumthecat at 12:48 PM on November 16, 2010


Miley Sensible!
posted by lodurr at 12:49 PM on November 16, 2010


Devo is the new Devo.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:49 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


shakespeherian: Devo is the new Devo.

New Devo is the new Middle Period Devo. There is no new Old Devo.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 12:57 PM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Derek Sivers of CD Baby on the early days of iTunes: The day Steve Jobs dissed me in a keynote
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Who is the other Aphex Twin?

Funny story.
posted by echo target at 1:22 PM on November 16, 2010


ArtW: "Who is the other Aphex Twin?"

Richard James, RDJ's brother, who died three years before RDJ was born.

(Philip K Dick, Elvis and Liberace all had actual twins who died at a very early age. It does things to your head.)

Oh, yeah, Beatles. iTunes. Er, good?
posted by Devonian at 1:26 PM on November 16, 2010


A bigger deal to Apple and people who identify with Apple than the entire rest of the world, I suspect.
posted by Artw at 1:40 PM on November 16, 2010


smackfu> Yeah, you can find soundtrack albums where every track is album-only. But that is probably a legal thing, where the publisher only licensed the song for the soundtrack or something and isn't allowed to sell it individually. In general, I don't think iTunes lets you make your whole album have album-only tracks.

You'll also see it with classical albums, where albums can be 4 tracks long (and therefore selling by the track would be cheaper).
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 1:45 PM on November 16, 2010


Apparently any track over 10 minutes on iTunes is automatically album-only.
posted by smackfu at 1:50 PM on November 16, 2010




Uh, you guys do know that the band renamed themselves Joy Division in early 1978, borrowing their new name from the prostitution wing of a Nazi concentration camp mentioned in the 1955 novel The House of Dolls, right?
posted by defenestration at 2:09 PM on November 16, 2010


I think everyone is very aware of the actual answers to the questions they are asking, yes.
posted by Artw at 2:11 PM on November 16, 2010


Artw, thanks for misinterpreting my question and condescending to me in the process.

The lame JD jokes were on a different meme-wavelength than the lame lol people think Jethro Tull is some dude jokes.
posted by defenestration at 2:18 PM on November 16, 2010


Uh, you guys do know that the band renamed themselves Joy Division in early 1978

the beatles renamed themselves joy division ?

definite plot twist there.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:26 PM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Sorry if I offended.

FWIW, I managed to know that about Joy Division without knowing/caring much about Jethro Tull.
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on November 16, 2010


The lame JD jokes were on a different meme-wavelength than the lame lol people think Jethro Tull is some dude jokes.

Weird, I just got this in a fortune cookie.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:27 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


BTW, y'all, I love lame jokes—my posting history should be evidence enough—so don't think I was shit-talking,

in bed.
posted by defenestration at 2:35 PM on November 16, 2010


We should try again, some kind of New Order.
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Seed Drill is a better name.
posted by box at 2:48 PM on November 16, 2010


It could be worse, you could be in The Fall.
posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on November 16, 2010


defenestration: The lame JD jokes were on a different meme-wavelength than the lame lol people think Jethro Tull is some dude jokes.
shakespeherian: Weird, I just got this in a fortune cookie.


Weird, I just played it backwards and got Ian Anderson's recipe for Bedfordshire clanger. (note: his secret is to parboil the Ox kidney first)
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 2:55 PM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Appropos of not very much, Joy Division, as photographed by Kevin Cummins
posted by Artw at 2:58 PM on November 16, 2010


Little late to this thread, darn physical labor all day taking me away for the internet.

I was just looking at this Beatles stuff on Itunes. I have all their British releases on CD, most on vinyl, lots o'bootlegs, I'm tripping over this stuff. But looking at the Itunes store, damn it, I wanted to buy something! I did manage to resist. I'm just that bad for the Beatles.

I'd be curious to see what the most popular tracks are (I didn't see anywhere on iTunes that had best seller list or whatever). I wonder how man copies they're selling of the "Pepperland March" or whatever the orchestral stuff on side 2 of Yellow Submarine.

I'm really more excited about this being released today, I'm getting my copy tomorrow.

And if we have a discussion about the Beatles, I always have to link to my always current favorite Beatles youtube video.
posted by marxchivist at 3:40 PM on November 16, 2010


Gnomes used to handcraft The Beatles records individually.

This is truly something.

Automation... the future!

(the eurozone currency is teetering on the Edge, there's a new royal wedding coming up, it must be a recession... QE2 people! ringo)
posted by vectr at 5:05 PM on November 16, 2010


The lame JD jokes were on a different meme-wavelength than the lame lol people think Jethro Tull is some dude jokes.

To clarify. Yacht Rock, Episode 6.

Don't worry. They weren't smooth.
posted by philip-random at 5:21 PM on November 16, 2010


Double albums (the White Album and the Red and Blue albums) are $19.99

So they're releasing the original catalog and all the bullshit remastered stuff? I mean, I guess it makes sense financially for itunes--but everything on the red and blue albums are available elsewhere. Seems so pointless to me.

(I do love me some Rock and Roll Music v. 1, though, so, yeah, hypocrite.)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:25 PM on November 16, 2010


(Philip K Dick, Elvis and Liberace all had actual twins who died at a very early age. It does things to your head.)

Wait wait wait.

There could have been Elvii?

O_o
posted by device55 at 7:44 PM on November 16, 2010


So I never knew that the Beatles wanted to star in a live action movie version of The Lord of the Rings. It was going to be Paul McCartney as Frodo Baggins, Ringo Starr as Sam Gamgee, George Harrison as Gandalf, and John Lennon as Gollum. That would have been something to see.
posted by Sailormom at 8:42 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


especially when you realize that yoko was going to play all the orcs
posted by pyramid termite at 9:01 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


At some point on the younger range of the age spectrum (and probably not all that much younger), I can't imagine that they're listening to the Beatles at all.

Imagine harder. They are.
posted by John Cohen at 10:53 PM on November 16, 2010


RANT ALERT!!!

Steve Jobs can rot in hell for all I care. Why the blank did he have to name his company "Apple"? Could he not have named his company "Granny Smith" or "Golden Delicious" or even friggin' "Rutle Computers"? No, it had to be "Apple", so then he makes a deal that he can be "Apple Computer" as long as he doesn't get into music. So what's he do? Get into music. I hope that not having Beatle tunes on I-Tunes for so long made that billionaire lose at least $1. Seriously. I can't stand that cancer-ridden jerk. Even though I bought all the band's lps, all the first generation cds, and all the 2009 remasters, I just might go download the entire I-Tunes Beatles catalog from bittorent just to spite him. Jackass.
END RANT
Phew. I feel better. I've been sitting on this rant all day 'cause I've been at work. I think I'd better go take a shower.
posted by frodisaur at 11:01 PM on November 16, 2010


Frodisaur, have you considered that calling him a "cancer-ridden jerk" might be offensive to people other than him?
posted by John Cohen at 11:05 PM on November 16, 2010


Offensive, maybe. But Jobs does have a long history of convenient ethical behavior.
posted by lodurr at 11:25 PM on November 16, 2010


At some point on the younger range of the age spectrum (and probably not all that much younger), I can't imagine that they're listening to the Beatles at all.

Imagine harder. They are.
posted by John Cohen at 10:53 PM


Yeah, the Beatles + the Stones (+ Dylan + Hendrix + perhaps Aretha Franklin + Phil Spector, too) are 20th Century Immortals. Like Shakespeare before them, their place in the collective bibliography may well get CONFUSED ... but the work itself shall most emphatically endure as the essential STUFF of its time.

and Led Zeppelin, too ... and Bowie, and James Brown, and Joni Mitchell and Janis Joplin and George Clinton and Bob Marley and Neils Young and Diamond. And the Osmonds.
posted by philip-random at 11:44 PM on November 16, 2010


and Led Zeppelin, too ... and Bowie, and James Brown, and Joni Mitchell and Janis Joplin and George Clinton and Bob Marley and Neils Young and Diamond. And the Osmonds.

Ozzy Osmond was my favorite.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:01 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


John Cohen:
Yeah, my comment was rather offensive. I do regret saying that particular part of my. Sorry. It's not cool to do that.
posted by frodisaur at 12:39 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


By the way, it does seem like many of Charlie Watts' "best" studio performances tend to either be straight 4 on the snare ("Satisfaction", "Paint It Black") or a constant repetition of a simple pattern ("Get Off Of My Cloud"). He couldn't even enter "Jumpin' Jack Flash" at the same tempo as Jagger's "1, 2!" On many other songs, he's mixed way back. Jimmy Miller had to direct him on some songs (I think "Honky Tonk Women") or just did the drumming himself (You Can't Always Get..."). But darn it, I still like his work. Ringo's got a much better feel, though.
posted by frodisaur at 12:50 AM on November 17, 2010


I'm more offended by the hyphen inserted into iTunes. If you're going to criticize, at least be correct.
posted by emelenjr at 7:08 AM on November 17, 2010


At some point on the younger range of the age spectrum (and probably not all that much younger), I can't imagine that they're listening to the Beatles at all.

Thanks to Beatles Rock Band my nine year-old is a big Beatles fan, asked for Sgt. Pepper's for her birthday (because her favorite song from BRB is Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds), and is happy to know she can spend some credit from an iTunes gift card on some Beatles songs. I'll admit, it is quiet surreal to find your kid randomly singing "She's Leaving Home" while playing around the house.

I didn't have a very musical upbringing but when I heard some Beatles when I was in my early teens they definitely clicked and I went on quite the listening binge for a few months.
posted by mikepop at 8:00 AM on November 17, 2010


Kids will always listen to the Beatles because parents will give them the CDs instead of stuff the kids actually want.
posted by smackfu at 8:34 AM on November 17, 2010


... and then the kids will listen to them and enjoy them because, hey, wouldn't you know these old farts are actually pretty good even though mom & dad like them.
posted by lodurr at 9:02 AM on November 17, 2010


Any kid who really loves music pretty much winds up adoring the Beatles, even more so if they actually play an instrument.

And now I'm cracking up because my iPad keeps trying to autocorrect "Beatles" as "Beagles," hahaha. Think they'll fix that in 4.2? :)
posted by zoogleplex at 10:34 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Jay-Z was on Fresh Air the other night promoting a new book. Terry Gross asked him about the Grey Album, and he said something to the effect that it boggled his mind to have his stuff mashed up with Beatles stuff.

I'm pretty jaded about the Beatles myself, but now and then when I really listen to something or hear it done in a new way (like the pianoless "lady madonna"), it still impresses me.
posted by lodurr at 11:16 AM on November 17, 2010


(Jay-Z really like the Gray Album, BTW. he said it was a huge honor.)
posted by lodurr at 11:16 AM on November 17, 2010


Kids will always listen to the Beatles because parents will give them the CDs instead of stuff the kids actually want.

Or kids will listen to the Beatles because they see the Beatles Anthology on TV at 11 and steal all of their mom's Beatles records and play them so much that, to this day, their mother is known to comment, "You really ruined the Beatles for me."

Or maybe that was just me.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:07 PM on November 17, 2010


Steve Jobs can rot in hell for all I care. Why the blank did he have to name his company "Apple"? Could he not have named his company "Granny Smith" or "Golden Delicious" or even friggin' "Rutle Computers"? No, it had to be "Apple", so then he makes a deal that he can be "Apple Computer" as long as he doesn't get into music. So what's he do? Get into music. I hope that not having Beatle tunes on I-Tunes for so long made that billionaire lose at least $1. Seriously. I can't stand that cancer-ridden jerk. Even though I bought all the band's lps, all the first generation cds, and all the 2009 remasters, I just might go download the entire I-Tunes Beatles catalog from bittorent just to spite him. Jackass.

Yeah, really, the nerve, the outright GALL of Steve Jobs for wanting to put more money in the coffers of EMI, Apple Corps, and the Beatles themselves. What a jackass for offering people a legit download option for one of the most famous rock acts ever! Sheesh.
posted by tantrumthecat at 9:34 PM on November 17, 2010


« Older Lemme show you how to cook that.   |   Going Dutch Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post