A few days ago, we found out that Apple Corps and EMI would finally release the Beatles' catalog in a digital format. It's not that we couldn't have just purchased CDs and ripped them—that's what everyone's been doing for years now—it's just that it felt like progress. In reality, it was just the near-random actions of someone who has no idea what's going on, at all. From the Guardian via Ars, Paul McCartney's view on selling the Beatles' music online:

I met [EMI's chief executive] on a plane once. I said: "What is the problem? I want to do it, we all want to do it." And he explained that in the deal that we want, they feel exposed. If [digitised Beatles music] gets out, if one employee decides to take it home and wap it on to the internet, we would have the right to say, "Now you recompense us for that. And they're scared of that."

Just to be clear, Paul McCartney says he wants to sell music online, but he—and his record company—are worried that someone could conceivably download it, upload it back to the internet, and open the floodgates to piracy. As opposed to just uploading the higher-quality digital files you're selling to people on Apple-shaped USB drives right now, or on CDs, more than a decade ago. McCartney expects an agreement by which he would be compensated if people share his music, as if it would be somehow correlated with the release of Beatles' tracks online, which EMI—no stranger to releasing music online—is scared of because it's insane.

Poor Paul! Someone should tell him, you know, about all the wapping. [Ars Technica]

UPDATE: From anonymized (not anonymous) source who researched similar subjects in the past, a possible explanation:

It's not the music for sale they're worried about but the raw remasters (this is why McCartney specifically refers to an employee potentially uploading the music). I don't know how much you've read about the making of [Beatles Rock Band] but they went to incredible lengths to protect the masters. It was only towards the end of the project that Harmonix received the (heavily encrypted) music they needed; before then, Apple Corps had been sending them "dirtied-up" copies of the music just in case it was intercepted halfway.

The real threat from McCartney and the other Beatles (and er, spouses of Beatles) is that if, somewhere in the process of turning their music into iTunes-friendly files, the MASTERS get leaked... then they will sue the pants off of EMI. And EMI allegedly said they are in such a precarious financial position that they do not want to take the risk of getting hit by a lawsuit that could take the company down.

An alternate theory, which still doesn't quite work. If masters leaked to the internet, presumably they'd be encoded in something like FLAC at best, which would be indistinguishable from the files the Beatles are OK with selling on USB drives right now. Or if this refers to the recording's component parts, like the ones used to create Rock Band, still: This seems avoidable. And in either strain of paranoia: Paul McCartney doesn't understand the internet. (And possibly other things, too!)

FLAC quality is 44.1Khz 24 bit, and MP3 is 320 Kbps. Only 30,000 will be made, and it goes on sale November 8 for $280 (pre-orders are now live). The stick is $60 more than the CD set, but die-hard fans get "all of the re-mastered CDs' visual elements, including 13 mini-documentary films about the studio albums, replicated original UK album art, rare photos and expanded liner notes." [TheBeatles.com]

Back in April, I got great vinyl rips of the major original mono albums, as mixed by the fab four and George Martin. The difference from my stereo CDs—which come from copies mixed in no time by audio engineers to eager to play with stereo panning effects—was beyond belief:

Beatles' record producer and arranger George Martin—the Fifth Beatle—once said: "You've never really heard Sgt Pepper until you've heard it in mono." As it turned out after hours of listening tests, it's completely true.

The first article I ever got published was an opinion piece on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I was 16 at the time and, needless to say, quite naive. I wasn't very much into non-Beatles music at that age, mainly because I didn't have much access to it. It wasn't until the next year that I was able to buy music regularly, having at last my own stereo system. But back then, my music world was all about the Beatles—and crap 90s radio pop. My dad had Sgt Pepper along with the rest of the Beatles' records and some compilations of classic rock, from Chuck Berry to bloody Kansas, so that was my music world.

I couldn't stop listening to Sgt Pepper. Non stop, I played it and played it until my ears bleed and then I played it some more. It was the stereo version, not the mono mix, and it has lived with me ever since. Then, a few months ago I read in The Word—a very good British music magazine—that the Beatles in mono are—like George Martin implied—better than the Beatles in stereo. Apparently, the Beatles didn't give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building.

So I started looking for them. Finding the actual mono mix in the market was impossible. Not to talk about the fact that I don't have a turntable anymore. For some reason, the Beatles company didn't have the mono mixes of the Beatles' albums available either—they are going to re-release them now, it seems, remastered—so I got into Torrent to hunt them down. I couldn't find them in the first try. I found a couple of MP3 rips, but I wanted to have FLAC rips of the original vinyls. After some time I gave up, forgetting about the mono Beatles until the Gizmodo's audio week.

I thought trying it would be interesting for a feature, so I started looking for them again and got 192kbps MP3s, which I compared to the stereo version at the same bit rate. Since Sgt Pepper was my album, I started to listen to its songs in pairs, with my earmuff headphones on.

I was blown away. George Martin was oh so right: The songs do sound different. I was so surprised, that at the beginning I freaked out. "What? What? How? What the fuck?" was in my mind all the time.

When Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band came up, my first impression was that the sound had more thump than the stereo mix. A lot more thump, for a lack of a better word. It was like someone was beating me with a hammer. It was kind of noisy, but it filled my head and pushed me in a way the stereo version didn't.

Then good old Ringo—my favorite Beatle—came up singing With A Little Help From My Friends. Same effect. It felt weird, but so much better. I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: "These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial." Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It was artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the "new thing." As a result, producers overused it, just for the sake of it, like when 3D cinema came out and everything was an excuse to fire arrows and rocks and monsters at the public.

I definitely liked the way the mono version sounded—a lot more, even while I knew the stereo version till the last beat and note. LSD came up: same result. The sound is crisper and nearer. The bass a lot better. Again that special thump, even while this is such a delicate song. Getting Better gets better, and so does the rest, Fixing a Hole, She's Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite... I just couldn't have enough.

But that wasn't all. In the mono version you can hear stuff that is not in the stereo version. And not just bits, but quite a lot of things. Instruments, notes, even lyrics. Take the reprise version of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: It is full of shouting—Lennon going bananas at the end, and other bits at the beginning—that is not in the stereo mix.

Maybe it's the novelty of listening to a "new" take on something that I know by heart, but I doubt it. As an experience, I like it a lot better. So much that I'm dying to get FLAC versions of good vinyl rips—or the remastered mono versions, as soon as they come out. And while your taste may be different, from now on this is the version I'm keeping in my iPod.

So yes, I'm excited about tomorrow. To hear how the new mixes are. I'm sure the clean mono set will be fantastic, but I'm really curious about how they managed the stereo remixes. Hopefully, they have added a new dimension, overriding the artificial panning effects, and creating a stereo mix that could live up to the original Beatles' sound. [Gizmodo]

"Conversations between Apple and EMI are ongoing and we look forward to the day when we can make the music available digitally. But it's not tomorrow."

Looks like The Beatles Rock Band is still gonna be the only (legit) way to snag The Beatles catalog completely digitally, at least until someone kicks EMI in the ass hard enough to make it happen. [FT]

Proceeds from the numbered consoles will go to Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières. The first console, already up on eBay, is currently at $20.50 with the auction ending in a little more than nine days.

Beginning Sept. 9, Xbox 360 owners can also download All You Need Is Love with those proceeds going to that charity as well. Purchasing the song for 160 Microsoft Points will also enter you in a contest for a chance to win one of the limited edition 360s and a Rickenbacker 325 replica guitar controller.

The Beatles: Rock Band, officially goes on sale tomorrow. Check out our review.

This instrument will be sold in the premium version of Rock Band, bringing rich bass sounds (and umlauts) to your very expensive virtual Beatles experience. [Kotaku]

Apparently, the guitars won't be included with the game, but sold separately for $99 each. Seriously, this is getting silly. [Kotaku]

The first article I ever got published was an opinion piece on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I was 16 at the time and, needless to say, quite naive. I wasn't very much into non-Beatles music at that age, mainly because I didn't have much access to it. It wasn't until the next year that I was able to buy music regularly, having at last my own stereo system. But back then, my music world was all about the Beatles—and crap 90s radio pop. My dad had Sgt Pepper along with the rest of the Beatles' records and some compilations of classic rock, from Chuck Berry to bloody Kansas, so that was my music world.

I couldn't stop listening to Sgt Pepper. Non stop, I played it and played it until my ears bleed and then I played it some more. It was the stereo version, not the mono mix, and it has lived with me ever since. Then, a few months ago I read in The Word—a very good British music magazine—that the Beatles in mono are—like George Martin implied—better than the Beatles in stereo. Apparently, the Beatles didn't give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building.

So I started looking for them. Finding the actual mono mix in the market was impossible. Not to talk about the fact that I don't have a turntable anymore. For some reason, the Beatles company didn't have the mono mixes of the Beatles' albums available either—they are going to re-release them now, it seems, remastered—so I got into Torrent to hunt them down. I couldn't find them in the first try. I found a couple of MP3 rips, but I wanted to have FLAC rips of the original vinyls. After some time I gave up, forgetting about the mono Beatles until the Gizmodo's audio week.

I thought trying it would be interesting for a feature, so I started looking for them again and got 192kbps MP3s, which I compared to the stereo version at the same bit rate. Since Sgt Pepper was my album, I started to listen to its songs in pairs, with my earmuff headphones on.

I was blown away. George Martin was oh so right: The songs do sound different. I was so surprised, that at the beginning I freaked out. "What? What? How? What the fuck?" was in my mind all the time.

When Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band came up, my first impression was that the sound had more thump than the stereo mix. A lot more thump, for a lack of a better word. It was like someone was beating me with a hammer. It was kind of noisy, but it filled my head and pushed me in a way the stereo version didn't.

Then good old Ringo—my favorite Beatle—came up singing With A Little Help From My Friends. Same effect. It felt weird, but so much better. I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: "These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial." Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It was artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the "new thing." As a result, producers overused it, just for the sake of it, like when 3D cinema came out and everything was an excuse to fire arrows and rocks and monsters at the public.

I definitely liked the way the mono version sounded—a lot more, even while I knew the stereo version till the last beat and note. LSD came up: same result. The sound is crisper and nearer. The bass a lot better. Again that special thump, even while this is such a delicate song. Getting Better gets better, and so does the rest, Fixing a Hole, She's Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite... I just couldn't have enough.

But that wasn't all. In the mono version you can hear stuff that is not in the stereo version. And not just bits, but quite a lot of things. Instruments, notes, even lyrics. Take the reprise version of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: It is full of shouting—Lennon going bananas at the end, and other bits at the beginning—that is not in the stereo mix.

Maybe it's the novelty of listening to a "new" take on something that I know by heart, but I doubt it. As an experience, I like it a lot better. So much that I'm dying to get FLAC versions of good vinyl rips—or the remastered mono versions, as soon as they come out. And while your taste may be different, from now on this is the version I'm keeping in my iPod.

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

Though McCartney will probably make off with the lion's share of the cash sum, Ringo Starr and the families of the late John Lennon and George Harrison will also benefit. Michael Jackson, EMI and Sony will also be paid, as they each own a share in the back catalog. McCartney may actually have to pay out a little more on his divorce settlement because of the deal. How that works is anyone's guess, but you gotta feel sorry for him; having to share all those millions is just plain malicious. When the albums will actually hit iTunes is not yet confirmed, but we'll keep you up to speed with any banging of Maxwell's silver hammer. [United Press International]

This latest round of Beatles-on-iPod scuttlebutt comes from a music industry consultancy called Music Ally, which also somehow knows that this Yellow Submarine iPod will commemorate the date when all the Beatles tracks suddenly become available on iTunes. The prescient consultants add that all these Beatles songs will be exclusive to iTunes for a month before they're offered on any other music download services.

If that's the case, why would Apple offer an iPod with all the Beatles songs pre-loaded, probably at a deeply discounted price, rather than just selling a repainted collector's model and let the fans spend more money in the store? Just like they did with the U2 iPod, you get the fans to buy the special iPod and then let them buy the songs with a higher profit margin.

That said, we've been bamboozled by all these Beatles/Apple rumors so many times, we're not going to hold our breath waiting for this one. [Tech Digest, via CrunchGear]

Well… great? Not that there's anything wrong with Sir Paul, but Wings was no Beatles. But if he's on board with the digital wave for his solo material, one would think there's not much left stopping The Beatles' music from following in a timely manner. Right guys? Right? –Adam Frucci

I know it would be cool to be able to buy their music online and everything, but at this point who doesn't have any of The Beatles' music already? Who's clamoring for this? Is anyone holding out, thinking "I've heard a lot about this 'Beatles' band, but I think I'll wait 'til they're on iTunes to check them out and see what the fuss is about."? –Adam Frucci

Reuters [via MacNN]

However, for some reason, EMI will still be holding a news conference in London, and Apple CEO Steve Jobs will be there, too. WTF is Steve Jobs going to be doing at an EMI press conference if it has nothing to do with the Beatles on iTunes? Other EMI artists? Your guess is as good as ours. We'll find out at 8 a.m. EDT, when there will be a webcast of the event. If this is another false alarm, we're going to have to shoot some Coca-Cola or something. We'll update you as soon as we find out anything. – Charlie White

Apple/EMI in deal, but Beatles not included-source [Reuters]

Press Release [via Apple Insider]

Seeing Steve Jobs calling up Beatles song "Lovely Rita" on his latest keynote, as well as flashing album covers of Abbey Road and, as he put it, "Sergeant Pepper's" got us wondering: Is this it? Is Beatles music finally on its way to iTunes? Tomorrow never knows. – Charlie White

Beatles iTunes deal is reached, report claims [Macworld]

Beatles: Only on iPod? [via iLounge via Fortune]

As we all know, the Beatles are pretty much the only band not available on any of the legitimate online music stores. (I'm sorry, but allofmp3 doesn't count.) I can't wait to (possibly) 3 plays/3 days share such obscure hits as "Penny Lane" with random young ladies on the street. "Hey there, hot mama, have you heard of the Beatles? They're this totally cool band..." (Cue mace to the face.) – Nicholas Deleon

Beatles set to go digital [Times Online]