Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Beatles-branded iPod in the Works?

This image was lost some time after publication, but you can still view it here.
This image was lost some time after publication, but you can still view it here.

First it was Bono and now it's The Beatles. Fortune magazine is reporting that Britain's EMI Group (the Beatles' record label) is close to making a deal with the house of Jobs. There's talk of bringing The Beatles' catalogue exclusively to iTunes and even using one of their songs in an iPod ad. But what's even more interesting is talk of a Beatles-branded iPod. Personally, I prefer my Beatles on vinyl, but in the long run this will only spread their tunes to a new generation of listeners. Sorry Zune fans, looks like the Fab Four have already found a new home.

Advertisement

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

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

Benko, Ninja:

Mixing doesn't mean much nowadays. Everyone mixes hot and in the middle.

The Beatles, like many bands from the 60's, were producing albums during the transition period from mono to stereo.

Many Beatles songs had different tracks in each speaker. As an example, listen to "Eleanor Rigby" off of "Revolver." The strings are in one speaker and the vocals the other. Remastering and remixing would destroy the work that went into a now overlooked aspect of music.

Also, all of the Beatles music IS readily available. How does making it available for download change anything? Unless there has been a reemergence of polio that has left thousands upon thousands unable to go to the store or to use the internet for anything other than I-tunes, what does downloading add? It won't make the albums cheaper.

Using I-tunes as an example, many of the new release albums there have already moved up to the $12 mark, including the new Jay-Z and Gwen Stefani albums, to cite two examples.

You can buy the CDs at Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, from Amazon.com, or from any number of other outlets for the same price as one would expect for download.

Finally, did anyone here actually read the story?

It's based on a Fortune article from their website (not paper mag) and is based on a six-month old story that the catalog is being remastered for download. There is nothing in the story stating the I-tunes is the front-runner.

And Ninja, you wrote:

"Someone who is buying off of iTunes is either (a) a new, younger listener or (b) casual listener who never bother to buy/rip a Beatles cd. Find me ONE person from either group that is going to CARE that they've been remastered? Didn't think so."

I have rebutted your (A) position. You still have yet to show that a music buyer as lazy as your (B) example exists.

And your "challenge": well that's just dumb. How can you expect someone to immediately produce an example as soon as you post to what, is in essence, a message board? Also, you are asking me to produce either a 4 year old or a unicorn. I have access to neither.

I challenge you to produce a dragon's tooth, dehydrated water, and the 15th incarnation of Buddha.

Too late. You lose.