Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 5, 2007

Apple Computer has settled its longstanding trademark dispute with Apple Music, the publisher of the Beatles catalogue. The good news is that this means some hope of finally bringing the Beatles to iTunes.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 4:37 PM | Pop Culture | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

The even better news is, as the article says, that the catalog will be remastered before the songs go onto iTunes! Of course, I have already bought all the songs in several media but will be ponying up once again.

Posted by: Fr. Greg Christakos at February 6, 2007 12:17 AM

Crank, your post can only mean one thing: you don't own enough Beatles cd's. Otherwise you would not be so excited about Beatles songs on iTunes. The first thing I did when I got my iPod was to import every Beatles album into the contraption. I command you to buy Revolver, Abbey Road, Rubber Soul and Hard Day's Night, for starters.

The absence of any Beatles songs on iTunes in some ways highlights one of the few positive developments in pop music: the Beatles catalogue has not been exploited the way that others' have been. No frivolous complilation albums and no exploitation of actual Beatles songs in commercials. This also means that 1960's-related complilations (Top Hits of the '60's, etc) do not have any Beatles songs. Only a few other major stars can claim this kind of purity, like Springsteen.

But I want Beatles songs on iTunes to bring them to a new generation. And it's time for remastering.

Posted by: Steve at February 6, 2007 8:40 AM

Why the clamoring for the songs on iTunes gang? Why do you want someone telling you what you can and can't do with your music? Pray the Beatles sell it on their own site, pure mp3's without restrictive DRM that locks you in.

The remastering of the catalog is well under way/almost finished from what I understand. That has delayed them from selling online, not any lawsuit. And I'd be surprised Apple Corp. is in any hurry to do business with Apple Inc, this settlement aside.

And Steve, the absence of their music on iTunes has NOTHING to do with exploitation. And their inclusion will not mean any additional compilations, commercials etc. Just as deciding to sell in a new record store chain (do they still have those?) has nothing to do with those things.

Why anyone buys songs from iTunes escapes me. If there is a god The Beatles music will be sold on, no restrictions. Put it on your Ipod, put in on your Zune, put it on your Zen, put it on your kid's mp3 player he got in the cereal box.

Posted by: SJGMoney at February 6, 2007 9:36 AM

Doesn't Michael Jackson own the rights to the Beatles music? I remember reading that somewhere.

Enlighten me, Beatles maniacs!

Posted by: Mark at February 6, 2007 10:30 AM

I'm not suggesting that iTunes means exploitation. But it seems that the Beatles are extremely protective of the music and are reluctant to use the songs for any purpose, including iTunes, commercials, greatest hits albums et al.

Posted by: steve at February 6, 2007 3:43 PM

According to story, Jackson sold an interest in it to they are 50-50 in it, unless Jackson has sold that...not a bad investment...$47 mil for a worth of $1 billion today?

Posted by: AstroFan at February 6, 2007 5:22 PM

Steve, I already own all those. I'm more interested in picking off the stragglers.

Posted by: The Crank at February 6, 2007 5:23 PM

Stragglers?!? There are no stragglers!

Posted by: steve at February 7, 2007 9:10 AM

Michael Jackson owns (now only 50%) the publishing rights to most of the Beatles catalog. He has no control over when/where/why it's sold. The music pie is split many ways and the publishing rights are a slice.

Posted by: SJGMoney at February 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg